alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Edward Mullins, Petitioner, v New York State Comptroller et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 216]

Mercure, J.

Petitioner was employed as a police sergeant by the Town of Warwick, Orange County, from 1992 until 2003. He filed for accidental disability and performance of duty disability retirement benefits in November 2003, alleging that he was permanently disabled due to an injury to his thumb sustained while making an arrest. Following hearings, petitioner’s applications were denied, prompting this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent Comptroller’s determination.

We confirm. Respondents concede that petitioner’s injuries were the result of an “accident” within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363; the sole issue in this proceeding is whether substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner is not permanently incapacitated from *952performing the duties of a police sergeant *(see Matter of Beckley v New York State & Local Retirement Sys.,*43 AD3d 1267, 1268 [2007]). John Mazella, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who examined petitioner on behalf of respondent New York State Retirement System, testified that although EMG nerve conduction studies were necessary to confirm which of two possible diagnoses applied to petitioner, safe and effective surgical procedures were available to correct either of the two conditions. In addition, petitioner’s medical records indicate that his treating physicians recommended surgery, which was not performed solely due to petitioner’s apprehensiveness.

Inasmuch as Mazella’s opinion was rational, articulate and fact-based, it constitutes substantial evidence to support the Comptroller’s determination that petitioner unreasonably refused to undergo a surgical procedure to resolve his disability and, thus, failed to establish that he was permanently incapacitated *(see Matter of Beckley v New York State & Local Retirement Sys.,*43 AD3d at 1268-1269; *Matter of Dymond v Hevesi,*24 AD3d 938, 938-939 [2005]; *Matter of Mondello v Beekman,*78 AD2d 824, 824 [1980], *affd*56 NY2d 513 [1982]). Petitioner’s assertion that Mazella’s opinion should have been rejected because he is not a hand surgeon is meritless. “[T]he fact that a physician [is] not a specialist in a particular area generally goes to the weight to be given the expert testimonyt,] not its admissibility,” and the Hearing Officer is vested with the authority to weigh the relevant medical evidence *(Matter of Marx v McCall,*306 AD2d 797, 799 [2003]; *see Matter of Varriano v Hevesi,*40 AD3d 1357, 1359 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 815 [2007]). Petitioner’s remaining argument has been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TODD LAMAR MOSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-610, CA-99-1588) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd Lamar Moss, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Todd Lamar Moss seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Moss , Nos. CR-98-610; CA-99-1588 (D.S.C. June 17, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.18.4



	Michael L.
      Corbat	Citigroup Inc.		
	Chief Executive
    Officer	399 Park Avenue		
		New York, NY 10022		
				


 

December 14, 2012 

Dr. Robert L. Joss 
84
Euclid Avenue 
Atherton, CA 94027 

Re: Consulting Agreement
Renewal 

Dear Bob: 

This letter sets forth our
mutual understanding that the Consulting Agreement dated April 5, 2010, as
amended as of October 28, 2010 and January 1, 2012, between you and Citigroup
Inc. (the “Consulting Agreement”) shall continue in effect on the same terms and
conditions from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 with one additional
change. In a modification of paragraph 1 of the Consulting Agreement, you agree
to provide consulting advice to Citi from time to time on projects as agreed by
you and me. 

If this arrangement is
acceptable to you, please sign and return one copy of this letter to me.


 

Citigroup Inc.


 

	By:  	/s/ Michael L.
    Corbat	                                      
    	By:  	/s/ Robert L.
Joss	
		Michael L. Corbat			Dr. Robert L. Joss	 
		Chief Executive Officer
# 2011

# 2012

# 2013

# 2014

# 2015

# 2016

# 2017

# 2018

&8page &P of &N	

# 2019

# 2020
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, Maurice H. Madrid,  Director/Acting  Financial  Officer of Sales  Strategies,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended  December
31, 2002 (the " Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13 (a)
or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); 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:    September 22, 2003



                                         /s/ Maurice H. Madrid
                                         ---------------------
                                         Maurice H. Madrid, Director/
                                         Acting Financial Officer
Chart 3-5. In 2005, about 10 percent of employed persons 

worked in alternative employment arrangements, mostly as 

independent contractors

Independent contractors

(7.4 percent) 

Workers provided 

by contract firms

(0.6 percent)

Temporary help 

agency workers

(0.9 percent) 

On-call workers

(1.8 percent)

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Traditional employment 

arrangements

(89.1) percent

February 2005

Chart 3-5. In 2005, about 10 percent of employed persons 

worked in alternative employment arrangements, mostly as 

independent contractors

• About 1 in every 10 workers in February 2005 was employed in an 

"alternative" employment arrangement. This category includes independent 

contractors, on-call workers, temporary help agency workers, and workers 

provided by contract firms. 

• Independent contractors accounted for just over two-thirds of those in 

alternative employment arrangements.

• The vast majority of independent contractors were satisfied with their 

arrangement. Just over half of temporary help workers would have preferred a 

traditional employment arrangement.
# Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

"Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) measures the average cost per employee hour worked that employers pay for wages and salaries and benefits. This release is issued quarterly. For more information, visit the Employment Cost Trends home page at www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/. "

- Private industry compensation costs average $43.11 per hour worked in December 2023
- Private industry compensation costs average $41.53 per hour worked in September 2023
- Private industry compensation costs average $41.03 per hour worked in June 2023
- Civilian workers' compensation costs average $43.07 per hour worked in March 2023
- Benefit costs for private industry workers average $11.86 per hour worked in Dec 2022
- Private industry union benefit costs average $21.24 per hour worked in September 2022
- Private industry compensation costs average $38.91 per hour worked in June 2022
- Civilian workers compensation costs average $40.90 per hour worked in March 2022
- Private industry compensation costs average $38.07 per hour worked in December 2021
- State and local government compensation costs average $54.46 per hour worked in Sept 2021
- Private industry compensation costs average $36.64 per hour worked in June 2021
- Civilian workers compensation costs average $39.01 per hour worked in March 2021
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 23

- 00538

- CR

IN RE Juan Jose SANTIAGO VILLALOBOS , et al.

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM Concurring Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios , Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 26, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On May 23, 2023, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relators also filed a

motion to stay, which this court granted on May 24, 2023. We requested responses from the trial

court and real party in interest. No ne were filed.

After considering the petition and this record, this court concludes relators are not entitled

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The stay imposed on May 24, 2023 is lifted

.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 31577 , styled State of Texas v. Juan Jose Santi ago Villalobos

, and Cause

No. 31941 , styled State of Texas v. Ale xandra Lizeth Ayala Ortega

, pending in the County Court

, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
# 2008

# 2009

# 2010

# 2011

# 2012

# 2013

# 2014

# 2015

# 2016

# 2017

# 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(609) 989-0508

CHAMBERS OF Clarkson Fisher Building and

 PETER G. SHERIDAN U.S. Courthouse

 JUDGE 402 East State Street

Trenton, NJ 08608

TO: Daniel Furesz

All Counsel of Record

FROM: Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J. 

DATE: May 11, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Furesz submitted three letters to me which appears as docket entries 62, 63 and 64. I

will consider them as a motion for reconsideration. The government may submit a response by May

26, 2011.

No argument is necessary. 

Case 3:10-cr-00398-PGS Document 67 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 476
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7708

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FARES ABULABAN, a/k/a Sameh,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00240-LO-1; 1:08-cr-00101-JCC-1; 1:11-cv-00674-

LO)

Submitted: May 27, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Cady Kiyonaga, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. KIYONAGA, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Karen 

Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Stephen 

Andrew Sola, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fares Abulaban seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Abulaban has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

BORDERLESS CAPITAL LLC 

AND DAVID GARCIA, 

Case No. 5D22-1707

LT Case No. 2021-CA-985-A

Appellants, 

v.

NEKTRA, S.A. D/B/A COINFABRIK,

RAND LABS, LLC, RAND LABS, INC.,

AND PABLO YABO, 

Appellees. 

________________________________/

Decision filed July 3, 2023 

Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Lake County, 

Dan R. Mosley, Judge. 

George G. Mahfood and Ryan K. Todd, 

of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, 

LLP, Miami, for Appellants. 

Patricia Acosta, Brett Alan Barfield, and 

Alexandra Goodstone, of PAG Law 

PLLC, Miami, for Appellee, Nektra, S.A., 

d/b/a Coinfabrik. 

No Appearance for Appellees, Rand 

Labs, LLC, Rand Labs Inc., and 

Pablo Yabo. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., JAY and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 1463

_____________________________
K EVIN B. K ASPER ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

— Original Jurisdiction

.

June 28, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

R AY , B ILBREY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Kevin B. Kasper, pro se
, Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
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 First Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, dated the
date of this Certification (the "Report"), I, Connie Ayres LaPlante, the
Treasurer 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 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, 2003                 By: /s/ Connie Ayres LaPlante
                                       ------------------------------------
                                               Connie Ayres LaPlante
                                               Treasurer
                                               (Chief Financial Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to First Federal Bancorp, Inc., and will be retained by First
Federal Bancorp, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
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 ATTHEW RI DG E, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 10049 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 4 5 5 - L DG 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

N e va da L l oy d D . G e or ge , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 12, 2013 ** B e f o r e : P R E G E R S O N , R E I N H A R D T , a n dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it J u d g e s . M a tthe w R i dge appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd c ha l l e nge s the 151- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f ordi s tr i but i on o f c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) . W e d is m is s . 

# FI LED MA R 21 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 10049 2 R i d g e arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rti m p ro p erl y d et erm i n ed th ath e w as a ca re ero ff

en d eru n d erth e G u id elin es . T h e g o v ern m en t co n ten d s th at R id g e’s appeal i s barre d b y aval i d app ea l w ai ver. W e r evi ew de no vo w hether R i dg e has w a iv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l. Se e U ni te d State s v . W

at s on , 5 8 2 F .3 d9 7 4 , 9 8 1 ( 9 th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). R i d g e co n t en d s th atth e ap p eal w ai v er sh o u l dn o tb e en fo rced b ecau se a thi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng the di s tr i c tc ourta dvi s e d hi m tha the ha d w a i ve d hi s r i ght t o app ea l , bu tthathe re t ai ned l i m i t ed appel l at e r i gh t s, i ncl ud i ng the ri gh tt o app ea l a n i l l e ga l s e nt e nc e . T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s qua l i f i e d a dvi s e m e ntdi d noti nva l i da t e the ap p e a l w a iv e r . Se e i d. a t 9 8 7 - 8 8 . DI S MI S S E D.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10521

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL CONTRERAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:10-CR-59-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Contreras 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). Contreras 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 assessmentthat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 22, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-10521 Document: 00511764117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2012
No. 11-10521

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-10521 Document: 00511764117 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2012
# field_descriptions

# qcew_fdi_size_age_2012
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 1 of 25 PageID: 7
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 2 of 25 PageID: 8
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 3 of 25 PageID: 9
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 4 of 25 PageID: 10
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 5 of 25 PageID: 11
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 6 of 25 PageID: 12
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 7 of 25 PageID: 13
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 8 of 25 PageID: 14
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 9 of 25 PageID: 15
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 10 of 25 PageID: 16
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 11 of 25 PageID: 17
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 12 of 25 PageID: 18
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 13 of 25 PageID: 19
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 14 of 25 PageID: 20
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 15 of 25 PageID: 21
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 16 of 25 PageID: 22
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 17 of 25 PageID: 23
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 18 of 25 PageID: 24
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 19 of 25 PageID: 25
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 20 of 25 PageID: 26
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 21 of 25 PageID: 27
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 22 of 25 PageID: 28
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 23 of 25 PageID: 29
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 24 of 25 PageID: 30
Case 3:11-cv-03662-MAS-TJB Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/11 Page 25 of 25 PageID: 31
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 563

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain formulated silver paints and 

pastes to coat tantalum anodes colloidal precious metals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain formulated silver 

paints and pastes to coat tantalum anodes colloidal precious metals.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SILVER PAINTS AND PASTES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 
2

•HR 563 IH 

‘‘ 9902.28.43 P6100-52% silver Ag Paint; 

P7400-52.8% silver AG Paint; 

P7402-61.6% silver Ag Paste; 

and P7500-

52.8% silver Ag 

Paint (provided 

for in subheading 

2843.10.00) ....... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2005 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ