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

Calendar No. 390 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2668 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 15, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

MAY 7, 2012 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the station of the United States Border Patrol 

located at 2136 South Naco Highway in Bisbee, Arizona, 

as the ‘‘Brian A. Terry Border Patrol Station’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Brian A. Terry Memo5 rial Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2668 RS

1 (1) A native of Flat Rock, Michigan, Agent 

2 Brian A. Terry served his country proudly with the 

3 United States Marine Corps and continued his serv4 ice as a police officer with the cities of Ecorse and 

5 Lincoln Park, Michigan, prior to joining the United 

6 States Border Patrol. 

7 (2) Agent Terry was a member of the 699th 

8 Session of the Border Patrol Academy assigned to 

9 the Naco Border Patrol Station within the Tucson 

10 Sector. 

11 (3) On December 14, 2010, Border Patrol 

12 Agent Brian A. Terry was conducting a Border Pa13 trol Tactical unit (BORTAC) operation in the area 

14 of ‘‘Peck Wells’’. 

15 (4) At 11:15 p.m., near Rio Rico, Arizona, and 

16 about 15 miles north of Nogales, Arizona, Agent 

17 Terry and his team spotted a group of individuals 

18 approaching their position. 

19 (5) Shortly thereafter, an encounter ensued and 

20 gunfire was exchanged that left Agent Terry mor21 tally wounded. 

22 (6) Agent Terry succumbed to his injuries on 

23 December 15, 2010. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2668 RS

1 (7) Agent Terry is survived by his mother, fa2 ther, stepmother, stepfather, brother, and two sis3 ters. 

4 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

5 The station of the United States Border Patrol lo6 cated at 2136 South Naco Highway in Bisbee, Arizona, 

7 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Brian A. Terry 

8 Border Patrol Station’’. 

9 SEC. 4. REFERENCES. 

10 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

11 paper, or other record of the United States to the station 

12 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

13 to the ‘‘Brian A. Terry Border Patrol Station’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 390 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2668 

AN ACT 

To designate the station of the United States Border Patrol Station’’. in Bisbee, Arizona, as the ‘‘Brian A. Terry Bor- der Patrol located at 2136 South Naco Highway 

MAY 7, 2012 

Reported without amendment 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.3

 

ENDORSEMENT TO 10% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE

 

Precision Optics Corporation, Inc.
 New York, New York
 February 7, 2011

 

The 10% Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010, July 26, 2010, September 15, 2010, October 15, 2010, November 15, 2010, November 30, 2010, December 1, 2010, December 3, 2010, December 17, 2010,  January 10, 2011 and January 24, 2011 (the “Note”) of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), payable to the order of Special Situations Fund III, QP, L.P. (the “Holder”) in an aggregate principal amount of $275,000 and to which the Endorsement is affixed is hereby amended in the following respects:

 

1.                                       The term “Stated Maturity Date” is hereby restated to be “February 25, 2011.”

 

2.                                       Except as expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed, and the Holder has caused this Endorsement to be duly accepted, by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written.

 

	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
PRECISION   OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By
    	
/s/   Richard E. Forkey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   Richard E. Forkey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Accepted:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
SPECIAL   SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P.
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   Adam Stettner
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Adam Stettner
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:   General Partner
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Javier Galindo Pacheco v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00156

- CR

Trial court case number: 1341972

Trial court: 262nd Judicial District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and brief concluding that the above

- referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se , has filed a motion requesting access to a copy of the appellate record for use in preparing his response to appointed counsel’s brief and a 30

- day extension of time to file his re spon se

. See Kelly v.

State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We grant the motion and order the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from

the date of this order , to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant. The trial court clerk shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order , the date upon

whic h delivery of the re cord to the appellant is made.

Finally, appellant’s response

, if any, to his appointed counsel’s brief shall be filed within 45 days of the date of this order

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _

/s/ Laura C. Higley


Date: February 26, 2015
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 Form 10-Q/A
 (Amendment No. 1)
 þ
    
    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from            to
 Commission File Number 000-50132
 
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 Delaware
    
    76-0502785(State or other jurisdiction of
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)Incorporation or organization)333 Clay Street, Suite 3600
    
    (713) 650-3700Houston, Texas 77002-4109
    
    (Registrants telephone number,(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    including area code)
 þ o
 o o
  Large accelerated filer o
Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer o(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company þ o þ




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY NOTE
  10-Q.
  Exhibit Number:
    
    Description31.1
    
    Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Chief Executive Officer.31.2
    
    Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Principal Financial Officer.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
(Registrant)Date: February 1, 2011
    By
    /s/ JOHN V. GENOVAJohn V. GenovaPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 1, 2011
    By
    /s/ DAVID J. COLLINSDavid J. CollinsSenior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Hilaria MORENO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70469.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Hilaria Moreno, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., Shahrzad Baghai, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hilaria Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioner’s contention that the agency violated her due process right to a full and fair hearing by failing to properly address and evaluate her claim of hardship does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s contention—that she is eligible for adjustment of status based on a 1-130 petition filed by her United States citizen daughter—because it was not raised before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 250 

To provide discretionary authority to an immigration judge to determine 

that an alien parent of a United States citizen child should not be 

ordered removed, deported, or excluded from the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2011 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide discretionary authority to an immigration judge 

to determine that an alien parent of a United States 

citizen child should not be ordered removed, deported, 

or excluded from the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT 

4 TO REMOVAL, DEPORTATION, OR EXCLUSION 

5 OF PARENTS OF CITIZEN CHILDREN. 

6 Section 240(c)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)) is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 250 IH

1 ‘‘(D) DISCRETION OF JUDGE IN CASE OF

2 CITIZEN CHILD.—In the case of an alien subject 

3 to removal, deportation, or exclusion who is the 

4 parent of a child who is a citizen of the United 

5 States, the immigration judge may exercise dis6 cretion to decline to order the alien removed, 

7 deported or excluded from the United States if 

8 the judge determines that such removal, depor9 tation, or exclusion is clearly against the best 

10 interests of the child, except that this subpara11 graph shall not apply to any alien who the 

12 judge determines— 

13 ‘‘(i) is described in section 212(a)(3) 

14 or 237(a)(4); or 

15 ‘‘(ii) has engaged in conduct described 

16 in paragraph (8) or (9) of section 103 of 

17 the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 

18 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102).’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7333** 

HERMENEGILDO RICO MARTINEZ , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
SUPERINTENDENT L.C.I. SANDY THOMAS; THEODIS BECK , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Graham C. Mullen , Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 00177

- GCM )

Submitted : January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Hermenegildo Rico Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hermenegildo Rico Martinez seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appe al was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on Ju ne 19, 2008 . The notice of appeal was filed on September
2, 2014

. * Because Martinez failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. F ed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988).3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Motion Granted and Continuing Abatement Order filed July 10, 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00240

- CV

____________ LINDA CAROL GOEHRS , Appellant

V.

U.S. SPECIALTY INSUR ANCE COMPANY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 157 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 00802



### CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER
The court abated this appeal on May 3, 2018 to allow the parties to mediate this case. On July 3, 2018, appellant filed an unopposed motion to extend the

a batement period to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the following order. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket until August 31, 2018. T he appeal will be reinstated on this court’sactive docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss the appeal or

other dispositive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its
own motion.

PER CURIAM
Opinion issued November 25, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 14

- 00879

- CV

——————————— IN RE TRACY M. GIBBS , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Tracy M. Gibbs, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. * We

deny the petition.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

* The underlying case is In the Interest of [C.M.G.] , cause number 2001

- 25797, pending in the 257th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Hon. Judy Warne presiding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6749

RICHARD WADE KENDRICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN B. METZGER, III; SANDRA COMBS; LINDA

PITTMAN; JOSEPH LEWIS; WINNIE DIXON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-679-R)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Wade Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Kendrick v. Metzger, No. CA-95-679-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 16, 1996). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2327 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2327

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
   gain from the conversion of property by reason of eminent domain.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2011

  Mr. Gingrey of Georgia (for himself, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Broun of 
Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, 
  Mr. Jones, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Bilbray) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
   gain from the conversion of property by reason of eminent domain.

    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 ``Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR GAIN FROM DISPOSITION OF 
              PROPERTY BY REASON OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items specifically excluded 
from gross income) is amended by inserting after section 139D the 
following new section:

``SEC. 139E. GAIN FROM DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BY REASON OF EMINENT 
              DOMAIN.

    ``(a) In General.--Gross income shall not include gain from the 
conversion (or threat or imminence thereof) of property in the United 
States by reason of the exercise of eminent domain by a governmental 
unit having the power to exercise eminent domain.
    ``(b) Coordination With Other Nonrecognition Provisions.--
            ``(1) Gain.--Gain excluded under subsection (a) shall not 
        be treated as gain recognized or an amount realized for 
        purposes of sections 467, 637(d), 1033, 1245, 1250, 1252, 1254, 
        1255, and 1402.
            ``(2) Section 1231.--Section 1231 shall be applied without 
        regard to this section.
            ``(3) Holding period.--Section 1223(1) shall not apply.
    ``(c) Election Not To Claim Credit.--This section shall not apply 
to a taxpayer for any taxable year if such taxpayer elects to have this 
section not apply for such taxable year.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such part is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139C the 
following new item:

``Sec. 139E. Gain from disposition of property by reason of eminent 
                            domain.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jost Fischer, 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:

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.



|            |  |  |  |                          
|----------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|May 5, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ JOST FISCHER         
|            |  |  |  | Jost Fischer             
|            |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer  
|            |  |  |  | (Chief Executive Officer)

A signed original of
this written statement required by section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2417 

To repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

with respect to lighting energy efficiency, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 6, 2011 

Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. FLORES, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. TURNER, Mr. WOLF, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mrs. 

CAPITO, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. BURGESS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. POE of Texas, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act with respect to lighting energy efficiency, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Use of Light 

5 Bulbs Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2417 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIGHTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 321 and 322 of the En3 ergy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 

4 110–140) are repealed. 

5 (b) APPLICATION.—The Energy Policy and Con6 servation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) shall be applied 

7 and administered as if sections 321 and 322 of the Energy 

8 Independence and Security Act of 2007 (and the amend9 ments made by those sections) had not been enacted. 

10 SEC. 3. MERCURY-CONTAINING LIGHTING. 

11 No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard 

12 regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the 

13 extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied 

14 only by installing or using lamps containing mercury. 

15 SEC. 4. STATE REGULATION. 

16 No State or local regulation, or revision thereof, con17 cerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium 

18 screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be ef19 fective. 

20 SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS. 

21 In this Act, the terms ‘‘general service incandescent 

22 lamp’’, ‘‘lamp’’, and ‘‘medium screw base’’ have the mean23 ings given those terms pursuant to the Energy Policy and 

24 Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), as applied and 

25 administered pursuant to section 2. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS