alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 01-14-00953-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT HOUSTON 

Bobbie Tremain vs. Jay Oates 

On Notice of Appeal by Bobbie Tremain, Appellant 

Cause No. 2014-06315 from the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas 

The Honorable Judge Joseph J. Halbach Jr. Presiding 

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FOR JAY OATES, APPELLEE 

THE LEWIS LAW FIRM 

Clint W. Lewis 

TBA No. 12275250 

8445 Gladys Ave. 

Beaumont, Texas 77706 

(409) 899-5600 - telephone 

(409) 899-5682 - facsimile 

E-mail: lewislawvers(daol.com - 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 

JAY OATES 

ACCEPTED

01-14-953-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

1/23/2015 4:53:13 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/23/2015 4:53:13 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
NO. 01-14-00953-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT HOUSTON 

Bobbie Tremain vs. Jay Oates 

On Notice of Appeal by Bobbie Tremain, Appellant 

Cause No. 2014-06315 from the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas 

The Honorable Judge Joseph J. Halbach Jr. Presiding 

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEAFUNCE FOR JAY OATES, APPELLEE 

THE LEWIS LAW FIRM 

Clint W. Lewis 

TBA No. 12275250 

8445 Gladys Ave. 

Beaumont, Texas 77706 

(409) 899-5600 - telephone 

(409) 899-5682 - facsimile 

E-mail: lewislaw~ers@,aol.coin 

ATTORNEY .FOR DEFENDANT 

JAY OATES 
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FOR JAY OATES, APPELLEE 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

COMES NOW, AppelleeIDefendant, Jay Oates, and files this Notice of Attorney Appearance 

indicating that Clint W. Lewis is a counsel of record in connection with this appellate action. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE LEWIS LAW FIRM 

8445 Gladys Ave. 

Beaumont, Texas 77706 

(409) 899-5600 telephone 

By: 

Clint W. Lewis 

TBA No. 12275250 

E-mail: lewislawvers@aol.coin 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certifl that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered 

in compliance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 21 & 21a, via certified mail, return receipt requested, andlor by 

facsimile to attorney for PlaintiffIAppellant, S. Scott West, The West Law Firm, 1600 Hwy 6, Ste 

450, Sugar Land, Texas 77478, and attorney for Defendant, Nadia Vredevelt, Law Office of David 

Black, 122 1 Lamar, Ste 900, Houston, Texas 7701 0, onll)s the 231d day of January, 201 5.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40298

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

REYNALDO SALINAS-MENDIOLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1366-1

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Reynaldo SalinasMendiola (Salinas) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Salinas has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40298 Document: 00512474110 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 13-40298

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40298 Document: 00512474110 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3062 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3062

    To extend credits related to the production of electricity from 
                 offshore wind, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2010

Mr. Carper (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Ms. Collins) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend credits related to the production of electricity from 
                 offshore wind, 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. EXTENSION OF CREDITS RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION OF 
              ELECTRICITY FROM OFFSHORE WIND.

    (a) Extension for Production Credit.--
            (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(d) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 
        ``(January 1, 2020, in the case of any offshore facility)'' 
        after ``and before January 1, 2013''.
            (2) Offshore facility.--Section 45(e) of such Code is 
        amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(12) Offshore facility.--The term `offshore facility' 
        means any facility located in the inland navigable waters of 
        the United States, including the Great Lakes, or in the coastal 
        waters of the United States, including the territorial seas of 
        the United States, the exclusive economic zone of United 
        States, and the outer Continental Shelf of the United 
        States.''.
    (b) Extension for Investment Credit.--Clause (i) of section 
48(a)(5)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``is placed in service in'' and inserting 
        ``is--
                                    ``(I) except as provided in 
                                subclause (II), placed in service in'',
            (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, 
        and'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
                                    ``(II) in the case of an offshore 
                                facility (as defined in section 
                                45(e)(12)), such facility is placed in 
                                service after 2008 and before 2020.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Vittorio Antonini et al., Respondents, v Orazio Petito et al., Appellants.

Submitted January 22, 2013;

decided February 12, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Rivera taking no part.
1. 

L. It'l~~rl'z?> .~?!!b :'le rrrn!8!ion* o? ft~ NTOC, 75 k,?.? P 533.31n?, Be. vl(;p riil;n- .., . :LL,, ..+.... Ilrrly t-11~ -+ :t~i-i~~? ~ ~iiol~ti~ti NOT' ) r .t ;l* p-Tr!l -+- 

=nil* tntrs of 

:{:I? ?rtrvrxbnr: nf :yrt: ?SF.:+. ?Xi& rpg~l~:::Ions, c.i aps . :ma~si~r? . rrf J, !vilx!t pmniq9 

odi?rarlcc ~r re*nht?jnn t~ppmt-cd by ?!!e iYmmn-.?n. 
11 '71: '"~.i'w ar?cci tt.? t rtle fd:ut kr ahlt qs~n+rlv ~!<;r:q:*r:~. irqr, !ct: mvrr rn'~ 

:'n# i!s p~%;r,zh r*ncr!brng In ;I ?jr;lar~::;_sr;i~ is ; +~!at;nn raf NicC !rwu*?: ..n-
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000459 07-NOV-2018 10:31 AM
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M A RSH A LL D . LA PI ER, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 30401 D. C. No . 4 : 1 2 - c r - 0 0 0 0 2 - SE H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na S a m E . H a ddon, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y24, 2013 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , C L IF T O N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ar shal l D . L api erappeal s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entand chal l enges the deni alof hi s m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt alun der F eder alR ul e of C ri m i nal P r oc e dur e 29. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo a 

# FI LED AU G 01 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 30401 2 d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n f

o ra c q u itta l, see U

n i ted S ta tes v. G o n za lezT orres , 3 0 9 F. 3 d5 9 4 , 5 9 8 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. L ap ie rc o n te n d s th a t h is c o n v ic tio n u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) v io la te s h is ri gh tt o d ue process because s ec t i on 92 2 d oes notre qu i re thathe be prov i ded n o t i ce th ath e w as p ro h i b i t edfro m p o ssessi n g a fi rearm . A s L ap i er ack n o w l ed g es, th is c o u rt h a s p r e v io u s lyr e je c te ds u c h a r g u m e n ts . Se e, e . g. , U ni ted States v. H an cock, 2 3 1 F . 3 d5 5 7 , 5 6 3 -6 5 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) (rej ect i n g n o t i ce-b aseddu e p ro cess c ha l l e nge t o s t a tut e pr ohi bi t i ng dom e s t i c vi ol e nc e m i s de m e a na nt s f r om pos s e s s i ng f ir e a rm s ) ; U

ni ted States v. A l len , 6 9 9 F. 2 d4 5 3 , 4 5 8 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 2 ) ( r e j e c t i n g s a me c h a l l e n g e t o f

e l o n - i n - p o s s e s s i o n s t a tu t e ) . Lap i e r ’ s c o n t e n t i o n th a tr e c e n tSup r e me C o u rt d e c is io n s u n d e rm in e th is p r e c e d e n t is u n p e r s u a s iv e . Se e D is t. o f C o lu m b ia v. H eller , 5 5 4 U .S . 5 7 0 , 6 2 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ( “[ N ]o th in g in o u ro p in io n s h o u ldb e ta k e n to c a s tdoubton l ongs t a ndi ng pr ohi bi t i ons on the pos s e s s i on of f i r e a rm s by f e lo n s . . . .” ) . AF F I RME D.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3289 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3289

  To amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 to 
allow specified energy property grants to real estate investment trusts 
        without regard to the ratable share income limitations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 29, 2010

  Mr. Cardin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 to 
allow specified energy property grants to real estate investment trusts 
        without regard to the ratable share income limitations.

    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 ``Sustainable Property Grants Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REIT RATABLE SHARE LIMITATION FOR ARRA GRANTS 
              WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 1603 of the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 is amended by inserting after 
``Code of 1986'' the following: ``, except that subsection (d)(1) 
thereof shall not apply in the case of a real estate investment trust 
(as defined in section 856 of such Code)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to grants made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
.Ua tianat Indian Gaminrf Cornmissinn 

. - i. \V:r:b:?:;, irdi.1. :.:;;i~:?:ii,l~:~ of tltc sI{i(:, 23 C F.3. 5 Fi"..i(a 1. ;Re Vic:C. ..- Y~IT;:?:~,; ,777 ;x!,:i~: ;! s<>i'~~ ~f viailii~>~~ {T[>V) tt~ ;:A! ~cc~J:' if:: *::r:!di:;v!$ CI~ 

:,\1, p! -,>-, :~!ck;>, 1 ,- [!y< 1cl7:\. biitic rcgi~!ii~ic:gs. (77 w!- puvij:~:: a,>!+ 3 ;pi:$ ;2;>~111g 

:71,:ti:1r:l:cc cr - ::zr;:::iinr: :r.,s:nvcl :??- 13i: C!t~in>an.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,830]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 21, 2009, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Maggy London International, Ltd., Production Department, New York, New York.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13455 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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

MARVIN BRYANT, III,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

T. FELKER, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 11-15313

D.C. No. 4:06-cv-00005-CW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Marvin Bryant, III, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

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

FILED

DEC 27 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15313

Bryant contends that the pre-trial photo identification procedure was unduly

suggestive and tainted the witness’ in-court identification. The pre-trial photo

identification procedure was not unduly suggestive. Moreover, the in-court

identification was sufficiently reliable. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98,

114 (1977). Accordingly, the state court’s denial of this claim was not contrary to,

or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by

the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1); Plascencia v. Alameida, 467 F.3d

1190, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2006).

Bryant also contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

failing to move to exclude the witness’ pre-trial or in-court identification of him as

being a result of an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure. As stated

above, the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive. Accordingly,

Bryant did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of the

proceeding would have been different had his counsel challenged the pre-trial

identification procedure. See Wilson v. Henry, 185 F.3d 986, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Accordingly, the state court’s denial of this claim was not contrary to, or an

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the

Supreme Court. See Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792-93 (2001); Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
3 11-15313

Bryant’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See

Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 21
                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Owned By                                      Jurisdiction of
Registrant                                    Incorporation          Percentage
----------                                    ---------------        ----------

DCA Medical Services, Inc.(1)                 Florida                     68.0%

Dialysis Corporation of America               Florida                     68.0%

Dialysis Medical, Inc.(1)*                    Florida                     68.0%

Dialysis Services of Florida, Inc. -
         Fort Walton Beach(1)*                Florida                     68.0%

Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc. -
         Manahawkin(2)                        New Jersey                  54.4%

Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc. -
         Toms River(2)*                       New Jersey                  54.4%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. -
         Carlisle(1)                          Pennsylvania                68.0%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. -
         Chambersburg(1)                      Pennsylvania                68.0%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. -
         Lemoyne(1)                           Pennsylvania                68.0%

Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. -
         Wellsboro(1)                         Pennsylvania                68.0%

Lytton Incorporated(3)                        Ohio                        61.5%

Renal Services of Pa., Inc.(1)*               Pennsylvania                68.0%

Techdyne, Inc.                                Florida                     61.5%

Techdyne Livingston Limited(3)                Scotland                    61.5%

Techdyne (Scotland) Ltd.(3)                   Scotland                    61.5%

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

* inactive

(1)      Owned 100% by Dialysis Corporation of America.
(2)      Owned 80% by Dialysis  Corporation of America with Atlantic  Nephrology
         Group, Inc.
(3)      Owned 100% by Techdyne, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,344
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,344
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5,666)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,344
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    12
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,548)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not presented, as all shares of common stock are held by a sole
shareholder.
</FN>


</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3121 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the 

Army to lease portions of the Airborne and Special Operations Museum 

facility to the Airborne and Special Operations Museum Foundation 

to support operation of the Museum. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 16, 2010 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mrs. HAGAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to lease portions of the Airborne 

and Special Operations Museum facility to the Airborne 

and Special Operations Museum Foundation to support 

operation of the Museum. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LEASE OF AIRBORNE AND SPECIAL OPER4 ATIONS MUSEUM FACILITY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 449 of title 10, United 

6 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 4772 

7 the following new section: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3121 IS

1 ‘‘§ 4773. Lease of Airborne and Special Operations 

2 Museum facility 

3 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION OF LEASE.—Under such terms 

4 and conditions as the Secretary of the Army considers ap5 propriate, the Secretary may lease portions of the facility 

6 of the Airborne and Special Operations Museum to the 

7 Airborne and Special Operations Museum Foundation to 

8 be used by the Foundation, consistent with the purpose 

9 of the Museum, for— 

10 ‘‘(1) generating revenue for activities of the 

11 Museum through rental use by the public, commer12 cial and nonprofit entities, State and local govern13 ments, and other Federal agencies; and 

14 ‘‘(2) such administrative purposes as may be 

15 necessary for the support of the Museum. 

16 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON ANNUAL CONSIDERATION FOR

17 LEASE.—The annual amount of consideration paid to the 

18 Secretary of the Army by the Airborne and Special Oper19 ations Museum Foundation for a lease under subsection 

20 (a) may not exceed an amount equal to the actual cost, 

21 as determined by the Secretary, of the annual operations 

22 and maintenance of the Airborne and Special Operations 

23 Museum. 

24 ‘‘(c) USE OF PROCEEDS OF LEASE.—Notwith25 standing any other provision of law, the Secretary of the 

26 Army shall use amounts paid under subsection (b) to cover 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3121 IS

1 the costs of operation of the Airborne and Special Oper2 ations Museum.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

4 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

5 after the item relating to section 4772 the following new 

6 item: 

‘‘4773. Lease of Airborne and Special Operations Museum facility.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS