alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      10.11


Notes:











**NOTE
      5-**  **NOTES
      PAYABLE- RELATED PARTY**





**The
      Company had a construction bridge loan and note payable in the amount of
      $150,000 due to a related party. The note required a balloon payment of
      principal and interest at a rate of 12% due on July 23, 2004. The note was
      collateralized by land and 150,000 shares of the Company’s common stock.
      Interest expense in 2004 was $5,209. The Company paid back $123,000 in February
      and March 2004, and reclassified the remaining $27,000 to another individual
      who
      assumed the note payable, which was subsequently paid off. At December 31,
      2004
      this balance was paid off.**





**NOTE6-**  **NOTES
      PAYABLE - VEHICLE**





The
      Company has an automobile not payable which is secured by the vehicle, and
      guaranteed by the President of the Company. The loan is payable at $397 per
      month inclusive of interest at 14.65%, and is due June 2007.





The
      balance due at December 31, 2004 is $9,661.





Maturities
      of this note are as follows:





December
      31, 2005    $3,589


December
      31, 2006    4,153


December
      31, 2007    1,919





$9,661





**NOTE
      7-**  **DUE
      TO OFFICER**





The
      Company had outstanding at December 31, 2004 and 2006, $-0- and $5,246,
      respectively to an officer/stockholder for expenses advanced on behalf of the
      Company. There were no specific repayment terms.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Harold Antonio ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-3138.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2013.

Filed: April 8, 2013.

James M. McHugh, Special, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, Richard D. Westphal, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donovan S. Robertson, Rock Island, IL, Defendant-Appellant.

Harold Antonio Robinson, Muscatine, IA, pro se.

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Harold Robinson appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a firearms charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), suggesting that the district court abused its discretion in de-dining to sentence Robinson to a prison term below the advisory Guidelines range.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Robinson. *See United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions). This court independently reviewed the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Criminal Action No.: I I-353(JLL)

ORDER

LINARES, District Judge,

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to file a reply to the

Government’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and for discovery, and to supplement

the motion record. Because this case is set for an omnibus hearing on March 26, 2012 at 10:00

a.m,, the Court finds that allowing Defendant to submit a reply may result in the undue delay of

this hearing. Accordingly, Defendant will be given the opportunity to duly traverse on the record

at the upcoming hearing.

Further, as Defendant’s motion to supplement to the record is unopposed, Defendant’s

application will be granted.

IT IS on this 21st day of March, 2012,

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for leave to file a reply is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion to supplement the record with additional

exhibits is granted.

SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BAHADIR YAHSI,

L. LINARES

DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: August 13, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Edward J. GildeaEdward J. GildeaChief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

‘.

MICHAEL F. DURANTE. et a!.

Defendants.

1 Ucr-00277-SRC

ORDER

Upon application of defendant Michael F. Durante through counsel (Cat1 Fleming, Esq,)to modify the conditions of his bail originally set on March 24, 201 I, and upon notice to the United States Government (Assistant United States Attorney Anthony Mahajan), and upon ihe prior proceedings hereto,

ITISTHIS (4yo,11

ORDERED that Michael F. Durante’s conditions of bail as originally set on March 24, 2011 are modified as follows:

I, Michael F. Durante has pennission to travel to New York for purposes of conferring with counsel; and

2. Michael F. Durante has permission to travel to and stay at his home in Vermont. but shall give prior notice of his travel plans to his Probation Officer,

SO ORDERED.

— —

Stan1e Ter, U S D J
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

34. Unemployed jobseekers by sex, reason for unemployment, and active jobsearch methods used

Sex and reason

2002

Thousands of

persons Methods used as a percent of total jobseekers

Average

number

of

methods

used

Total

unemployed

Total

jobseekers

Employer

directly

Sent out

resumes

or filled

out

applications

Placed

or

answered

ads

Friends

or

relatives

Public

employment

agency

Private

employment

agency

Other

 Total, 16 years and over ......................................................... 8,378 7,254 62.9 54.4 16.7 17.2 20.3 8.5 11.8 1.92

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs1 ......... 4,607 3,483 65.4 54.6 19.9 20.7 26.1 11.4 13.9 2.12

Job leavers ............................................................................... 866 866 64.7 57.2 18.5 15.9 19.5 7.7 10.0 1.94

Reentrants ................................................................................ 2,368 2,368 59.7 52.9 12.7 13.3 14.8 5.7 10.5 1.70

New entrants ............................................................................ 536 536 57.9 54.9 11.2 13.7 8.8 3.0 6.9 1.57

 Men, 16 years and over .......................................................... 4,597 3,859 64.1 52.7 16.8 18.4 20.8 8.7 12.7 1.95

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs1 ......... 2,820 2,082 66.1 52.9 19.7 21.5 25.7 11.3 14.6 2.13

Job leavers ............................................................................... 434 434 65.9 55.4 17.5 17.3 20.3 7.7 11.2 1.96

Reentrants ................................................................................ 1,068 1,068 61.0 50.8 12.4 14.0 14.8 5.2 11.1 1.70

New entrants ............................................................................ 274 274 58.5 53.7 11.6 13.2 8.0 3.2 7.0 1.56

 Women, 16 years and over .................................................... 3,781 3,395 61.5 56.3 16.6 15.8 19.8 8.2 10.8 1.89

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs1 ......... 1,787 1,401 64.3 57.1 20.1 19.4 26.6 11.4 12.8 2.12

Job leavers ............................................................................... 432 432 63.5 59.0 19.5 14.4 18.7 7.6 8.8 1.92

Reentrants ................................................................................ 1,300 1,300 58.6 54.6 13.0 12.8 14.9 6.1 10.0 1.70

New entrants ............................................................................ 262 262 57.3 56.0 10.7 14.3 9.5 2.8 6.8 1.58

1 Data on the number of jobseekers and the jobsearch methods used exclude

persons on temporary layoff.

 NOTE: The jobseekers total is less than the total unemployed because it does

not include persons on temporary layoff. The percent using each method will

always total more than 100 because many jobseekers use more than one method.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BASEPROTECT UG, LTD., a GermanCorporation,

Plaintiff, Civ. Action. No. 2:1 1-cv-03621(CCC)(JAD)

OIuER

JOHN DOES 1-X (such persons beingpresently unknown),

Defendants.

THIS MATTER, having been brought before the Court by way of a Notice of Motion

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, seeking to quash a Subpoena issued to Earthlink, Inc. to the extent

that it requires the release of information pertaining to the Movant, who is identified in the

Subpoena by Internet Protocol (IP) address 24.42.89.124, for a protective order, and to dismiss

the action, and Plaintiff Baseprotect UG, Ltd. having withdrawn the Subpoena insofar as it seeks

information related to this IP address and voluntarily dismissed the movant, the Court havingconsidered the papers submitted by the parties and for good cause shown,

IT IS on this 2G+ day of , 2011 ORDERED THAT:

1. The motion is denied as the relief sought by the Movant in quashing the Subponea

and for a protective order is moot due to Plaintiffs withdrawal of the Subpoena;
DATED: 9[ch,

The Hon. Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00419

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.G. , a Child

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 02259

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Because Appellant is indigent, no costs

are taxed against her. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1.

SIGNED November 5, 2014.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

MARK GIRESI, a member of IBT : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1944 (MLC)

(Teamsters) Local # 177, :

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, :

:

Defendant. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF, Mark Giresi, bringing this action to vacate

an arbitration award resolving a grievance brought on behalf of

Plaintiff by his union, IBT (Teamsters) Local # 177 (the

“Union”), in which the arbitrator found that Defendant, United

Parcel Service (“UPS”), had “just cause” for terminating

Plaintiff’s employment (dkt. entry no. 1, Rmv. Not., Ex. A,

Compl.); and UPS moving to dismiss the Complaint on the basis

that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the arbitration award

(dkt. entry no. 5, Mot. to Dismiss); and Plaintiff cross-moving

to vacate the arbitration award, relying on the Complaint in

support of the cross motion (dkt. entry no. 7, Mot. to Vacate);

and

IT APPEARING that where a collective bargaining agreement

(“CBA”) “mandates that the Union has exclusive power to enforce

the employees’ rights in dispute resolution, an individual

employee may not bring an action to vacate an arbitration award,”

Case 3:11-cv-01944-MLC-DEA Document 8 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 99
except “where the Union breached its duty of fair

representation,” Provo v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co., No. 10-

2374, 2010 WL 4225920, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2010); see also

Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 186 (1967); Adams v. Crompton &

Knowles Corp., 587 F.Supp. 561, 562 (D.N.J. 1982); and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that (1) the CBA between UPS and the

Union provides that the multi-step grievance procedure set forth

therein “may be invoked only by authorized Union representatives”

(dkt. entry no. 5, Lario Cert., Ex. 2, CBA Art. 44 § 2 (emphasis

added)); (2) Plaintiff was not a party to the arbitration (Lario

Cert., Ex. 4, Arb. Op. and Award; Compl. at ¶ 26); and (3)

Plaintiff has made no allegation that the union breached its duty

of fair representation (see generally Compl.); and

THE COURT therefore concluding that Plaintiff lacks standing

to challenge the arbitration award; and the Court intending to

grant the motion and deny the cross motion; and the Court

deciding the motion and cross motion on the papers, see

Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); and for good cause appearing, the Court will

issue an appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: June 2, 2011

2

Case 3:11-cv-01944-MLC-DEA Document 8 Filed 06/02/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 100
Case 3:11-cv-03723-FLW -TJB   Document 13    Filed 09/06/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 254

Case 3:11-cv-03723-FLW -TJB   Document 13    Filed 09/06/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 255
Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 1 of 27 PageID: 1

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 2 of 27 PageID: 2

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 3 of 27 PageID: 3

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 4 of 27 PageID: 4

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 5 of 27 PageID: 5

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 6 of 27 PageID: 6

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 7 of 27 PageID: 7

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 8 of 27 PageID: 8

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 9 of 27 PageID: 9

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 10 of 27 PageID: 10

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 11 of 27 PageID: 11

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 12 of 27 PageID: 12

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 13 of 27 PageID: 13

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 14 of 27 PageID: 14

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 15 of 27 PageID: 15

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 16 of 27 PageID: 16

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 17 of 27 PageID: 17

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 18 of 27 PageID: 18

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 19 of 27 PageID: 19

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 20 of 27 PageID: 20

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 21 of 27 PageID: 21

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 22 of 27 PageID: 22

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 23 of 27 PageID: 23

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 24 of 27 PageID: 24

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 25 of 27 PageID: 25

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 26 of 27 PageID: 26

Case 3:10-cv-00603-PGS-DEA   Document 1   Filed 02/03/10   Page 27 of 27 PageID: 27
Order entered May 2 9 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00340

- CR

JANINE JOYCE CHARBON EAU, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Cour t Cause No. 006

- 80751

- 2012



### O RDER

The Court GRANT S the State’s May 23, 2014 motion to extend time to file its brief.

WE ORDER the State’s brief received on May 23, 2014 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al.,

 

 Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DOCKET NO. 11-cv-1754 (JLL) (JAD)

CIVIL ACTION

NOTICE OF MOTION TO 

DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY 

OF THE CRIME-FRAUD AND 

KOZLOV EXCEPTIONS TO 

DEFENDANTS’ PRIVILEGE CLAIMS

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq.

Princeton Pike Corporate Center

997 Lenox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(Tel): (609) 896-3600

(Fax): (609) 896-1469

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the 

Proposed Class

COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. 

Michael Coren, Esq. 

Jared M. Placitella, Esq.

127 Maple Ave

Red Bank, New Jersey 07701

(Tel): (732) 747-9003

(Fax): (732) 747-9004

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 

the Proposed Class

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 13230
TO: Justin T. Quinn, Esq.

Robinson Miller LLC

One Newark Center, 19th Floor

Newark, NJ 07102

Michael F. Williams, Esq.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

655 15th St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Counsel for BASF Catalysts LLC

Eric Tunis, Esq.

Herold Law P.A.

25 Independence Blvd.

Warren, NJ 07059

Counsel for Defendant Thomas D. 

Halket

David Blatt, Esq.

Williams & Connolly LLP

725 12th St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Robert E. Ryan, Esq.

Connell Foley LLP

85 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, NJ 07068

Counsel for Defendants Cahill 

Gordon & Reindel LLP, Cahill 

Gordon & Reindel, Howard G. 

Sloane, and Ira J. Dembrow

Kevin Marino, Esq.

John Boyle, Esquire

Marino Tortorella & Boyle, PC

437 Southern Blvd.

Chatham, NJ 07928

Counsel for Defendant Arthur A. 

Dornbusch II

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a time and date to be determined by the 

Court, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned attorneys for 

Named Representative Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class (“Plaintiffs”), shall move 

before the Honorable Special Discovery Master Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, 

Special Discovery Master, United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 

Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 13231
Jersey 07101, for an Order granting its Motion to Determine the Applicability of the 

Crime-Fraud and Kozlov Exceptions to Defendants’ Privilege Claims.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of its motion, 

Plaintiffs will rely on its Memorandum of Law. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that oral argument is requested.

Date: November 2, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,

Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq.

Princeton Pike Corporate Center

997 Lenox Drive, Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

(Tel): (609) 896-3600

(Fax): (609) 896-1469

/s/ Christopher M. Placitella u

Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.

Michael Coren, Esq.

Jared M. Placitella, Esq.

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

127 Maple Ave.

Red Bank, NJ 07701

(Tel.): (732) 747-9003

(Fax): (732) 747-9004

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 370 Filed 11/02/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 13232
#### Hodges *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J. — The evidence as to what occurred at the time of the homicide showing a plain and manifest • case of murder, with no color or suggestion of justification or mitigation, if the court erred either in denying a continuance applied for upon the ground *498that witnesses were absent by whom threats by the deceased could have been proved, or in charging the jury touching the law of justification, the errors were harmless and constitute no cause for granting a new trial-.

October 22,1894.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Sweat. Charlton superior court. April term, 1894.

Hitch & Myers, Mershon & Smith and L. L. Thomas,. for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and *~W.*G. Brantley, solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

Marc h 9, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00688

- CV

Marissa PETERSON,

Appellant

v.

HEB GROCERY CO., L.P

., Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CI

- 19610

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

O n February 27, 2020, appellee filed a surreply brief and an unopposed motion for leave

to file the surreply brief. The unopposed motion is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that appellee’s

surreply brief filed on February 27, 2020 is accepted as filed.

It is so ORDERED on March 9, 2020

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_________________________ MICHAEL A. CRU Z

, Clerk of Court
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5042

AN ACT

To amend the Department of Agriculture Organic

ondary education.Rico receive a high-quality elementary and secployees of the Forest Service stationed in PuertoAct of 1944 to ensure that the dependents of em-

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5042

AN ACT

To amend the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of

1944 to ensure that the dependents of employees of

the Forest Service stationed in Puerto Rico receive a

high-quality elementary and secondary education.

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

•HR 5042 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO COVER EXPENSES OF PRIMARY

2 AND SECONDARY SCHOOLING OF DEPEND3 ENTS OF FOREST SERVICE PERSONNEL IN

4 PUERTO RICO.

5 Section 202 of the Department of Agriculture Or6 ganic Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 554b) is amended—

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) PROVISION OF MEDICAL

8 CARE; RELATED TRANSPORTATION.—’’ before ‘‘Ap9 propriations for the Forest Service’’; and

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub11 section:

12 ‘‘(b) COVERAGE OF DEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EX13 PENSES IN PUERTO RICO; RELATED TRANSPORTATION.—

14 (1) Appropriations for the Forest Service shall be available

15 to the Secretary of Agriculture to cover the cost of pri16 mary and secondary schooling of dependents of Forest

17 Service personnel, who are stationed in Puerto Rico and

18 are subject to transfer and reassignment to other locations

19 in the United States, but not to exceed the costs author20 ized by the Department of Defense for the same area for

21 dependents of members of the Armed Forces, when it is

22 determined by the Secretary that the schools available in

23 the area of Puerto Rico in which the dependents reside

24 are unable to provide adequately for the education of the

25 dependents.
3

•HR 5042 EH

1 ‘‘(2) If the Secretary determines that the school at2 tended by a dependent described in paragraph (1) is not

3 accessible by public means of transportation on a regular

4 basis, the Secretary may provide, out of funds appro5 priated for the Forest Service, for the transportation of

6 the dependent between the school and the place of resi7 dence of the dependent.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 5,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.