alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Tumacácori
National Historical Park
Arizona


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Cultural Demonstrator - Draven Wilson
 artist with painted panels in front of himNPS PhotoVisual art has always been a part of O’odham culture. Their ancestors, the Hohokam, left behind ancient illustrations in stone called petroglyphs and pictographs. Only ancient artists know the true meaning behind their inspiration to create these illustrations, but their motivations may have been similar to those of their modern descendents.
Art is an expression of our thoughts, emotions, intuitions, and desires, but it is even more personal than that: it’s about sharing the way we experience the world. Self expression though visual art provokes new ways of seeing things.  
A self taught acrylic artist, Draven paints scenes of his native O’odham people and the landscapes of the Sonoran Desert in which they live. Through his art, he hopes to connect people to his heritage. 
The gift of artistry runs in his family, the Babaichi, for whom his work is named.
 Last updated: September 27, 2020
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8067
Tumacacori,
AZ
85640
 Phone: 520 377-5060 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionRadiation and Its Health Effects

# High Radiation Doses

Because radiation from nuclear material is strictly regulated, humans seldom experience large doses (~50 rem) of radiation. Nonetheless, lower doses can still damage or alter the genetic code (DNA) of irradiated cells. Moreover, high radiation doses (particularly over a short period of time) have a tendency to kill cells. In fact, high doses can sometimes kill so many cells that tissues and organs are damaged immediately. This, in turn, may cause a rapid whole-body response, which is often called "acute radiation syndrome."

In general, the higher the radiation dose, the sooner the effects will appear, and the higher the probability of death. (The time between radiation exposure and cancer occurrence, for example, is known as the "latent period.") This syndrome was observed in many atomic bomb survivors in 1945, as well as emergency workers who responded to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in 1986. Approximately 134 plant workers and firefighters battling the fire at the Chernobyl power plant received high radiation doses of 70,000 to 1,340,000 mrem (700 to 13,400 mSv) and suffered acute radiation sickness. Of those 134, 28 died from the radiation injuries that they sustained.

Although radiation affects different people in different ways, it is generally believed that humans exposed to about 500 rem of radiation all at once will likely die without medical treatment. Similarly, a single dose of 100 rem may cause a person to experience nausea or skin reddening (although recovery is likely), and about 25 rem can cause temporary sterility in men. However, if these doses are spread out over time, instead of being delivered all at once, their effects tend to be less severe.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 20, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Radiation Basics
          - Detecting Radiation
          - Measuring Radiation
          - Information for Radiation Workers
          - High Radiation Doses
          - Radiation Exposure and Cancer

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 20, 2020
§ 422.3 Reclamation law enforcement policy. The law enforcement policy of Reclamation is: ( a ) To maintain an accountable, professional law enforcement program on Reclamation project facilities, and to protect Federal project lands and their occupants. Reclamation will meet its law enforcement responsibilities by establishing and promoting a law enforcement program which maintains law and order, and protects persons and property within Reclamation property and on Reclamation lands;
( b ) To entrust law enforcement authority only to persons deemed to be qualified, competent law enforcement professionals;
( c ) To maintain a continuing review and evaluation of Reclamation's law enforcement programs and operations to ensure compliance with applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies of the Department;
( d ) To ensure that approved standards are attained and maintained by each law enforcement unit undertaking a contract or cooperative agreement;
( e ) To increase the effectiveness of law enforcement through the efficient handling and exchange of criminal and intelligence information with other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies, as appropriate;
( f ) To provide the public prompt access to information concerning its law enforcement program in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; Department FOIA Regulations, 43 CFR 2; and 383 DM 15, Freedom of Information Act Handbook (*see www.doi.gov*);
( g ) To ensure that the use of force by agency personnel under contracts or cooperative agreements with Reclamation complies with the Constitution and the law of the United States; and
( h ) To negotiate contracts and cooperative agreements under this part to ensure that: ( 1 ) Reclamation retains flexibility to meet its law enforcement needs; and
( 2 ) Entities entering into contracts and cooperative agreements are appropriately reimbursed.
1

Tong, Stanley

From: Tracy Walters <twalters@mdaqmd.ca.gov>

Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:25 PM

To: Graham, Vanessa; Tong, Stanley

Cc: Alan De Salvio; Bret Banks

Subject: AVAQMD Rule 1130 - Graphic Arts

Good Afternoon, 

The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District would like to provide the following information in response to the 

question regarding section (G) – Emission Reduction Credits. 

This section was reworded in response to a comment from EPA which inadvertently increased the ERC calculation limit 

from 300 g/l to the limits in section (C)(2)(a) Table 3. This section will be amended the next time the rule is opened to 

correct the wording, but at this time, there is no reason that this provision will cause the release of additional air 

contaminants or create any adverse environmental impacts. 

· The AVAQMD has no flexographic printing operations in the District. The District had one permit for a 

flexographic printing press that became inactive in 1998. 

· No facility has ever used this ERC provision, and the AVAQMD cannot foresee any opportunity for a facility to 

use this provision in the future. 

The total TOG & VOC emissions from printing sources in the AVAQMD from 2013 totaled 3.7 tons. These sources were 

Deluxe Manufacturing and Antelope Valley Press, a check printing operation and newspaper printer, respectively. 

Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. 

Thank you, 

Tracy Walters, R.E.H.S. 

Lead Air Quality Planner 

(760) 245-1661 x6122 

www.mdaqmd.ca.gov
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Fish Manzanita Lake

Lassen Volcanic National Park
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5108 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5108

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to qualify homeless youth 
and veterans who are full-time students for purposes of the low income 
                          housing tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2022

   Mr. Portman (for himself, Mr. King, and Mr. Brown) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to qualify homeless youth 
and veterans who are full-time students for purposes of the low income 
                          housing tax credit.

    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 ``Housing for Homeless Students Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. HOMELESS YOUTH AND VETERANS WHO ARE FULL-TIME STUDENTS 
              QUALIFIED FOR PURPOSES OF THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX 
              CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 42(i)(3)(D) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subclauses (II) and 
(III) as subclauses (IV) and (V), respectively, and by inserting after 
subclause (I) the following new subclauses:
                                    ``(II) a full-time student who, 
                                during any portion of the 7-year period 
                                ending with the commencement of such 
                                individual's continuous occupation of 
                                any low-income unit or units, was an 
                                individual described in section 725(2) 
                                of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
                                Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)),
                                    ``(III) a full-time student who, 
                                during any portion of the 5-year period 
                                ending with the commencement of such 
                                individual's continuous occupation of 
                                any low-income unit or units, was an 
                                individual described in section 2002(1) 
                                of title 38, United States Code,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to determinations made before, on, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12651

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cr-00555-SCB-AEP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

ASHANTI ROUNDTREE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 15, 2020)

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Thomas Burns, appointed counsel for Ashanti Roundtree in this direct 

Case: 19-12651 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 Page: 1 of 2
2

criminal appeal, filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief 

prepared under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We denied Burns’s 

motion based on potential violations of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 

2195 (2019). Burns has now filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial in 

light of our decision in United States v. Moore, 954 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020) and 

for leave to file that motion out of time. Roundtree, pro se, has also filed a motion 

to appoint new counsel. 

Burns submitted a response to Roundtree’s motion to appoint new counsel 

by letter dated April 14, 2020, and requested that the letter be filed ex parte

because it contains confidential discussions of his work product and attorney-client 

communications. Burns’s letter is construed as a motion for leave to file his letter 

ex parte and is GRANTED. Burns’s letter will not appear on this Court’s public 

docket.

Burns’s motion to file out of time a motion for reconsideration of our denial 

of his Anders motion is GRANTED. Because independent review of the record 

reveals no issues of arguable merit regarding the Rehaif errors that could be raised 

on appeal, or any other issues of arguable merit, Burns’s motion for 

reconsideration and his motion to withdraw are also GRANTED. Roundtree’s 

convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED. Roundtree’s pro se motion to substitute 

counsel is therefore DENIED as moot.

Case: 19-12651 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 Page: 2 of 2
(No. 751

Claim denied.)

#### Isabel Williams, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 19,*1927.

, Governmental *function*— State *not liable.*The State in constructing its system of hard roads exercises a governmental -function and is not liable for injuries or losses- caused by the negligence of its employees or agents engaged in its construction.

J. C. Bowman and B. J. O’Neil, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim made by Isabel Williams (now Isabel Williams Russell) for damages sustained to her wardrobe, five suit cases, and damages to her car, in an accident which oc*241curved on July 28,1923, when she was driving a Star touring car, on the State Highway four miles south of Carrollton, Illinois, when her car in some manner went down an embankment into a “borrow pit”, as it is termed in the diagram submitted by Gf. E. Corr, and being one of defendant’s exhibits. Claimant alleges that said road at that time was being constructed by the State Highway Commission of Illinois; that there were no barriers placed thereon, nor any signs indicating that the roadway or any fills adjacent thereto were dangerous; that while driving on said road with due regard for her own safety, embankment gave way, hurling her with her automobile and personal effects a distance of thirty-five feet into a ravine filled with water to a depth of ten to twelve feet; that loss to her car is $300.00; that her five suit cases filled with clothes sustained a loss amounting to $3,664.75.

From the evidence we find that all the customary and proper signs were placed along the highway so as to inform claimant of the character of the road over which she was traveling; that the road was 16 feet in width at the point where the accident occurred; that she was not passing any car at the time her car left the road and she went down the embankment. We do not believe that this claim is founded on equity and good conscience for the further reason that the claims made in her bill of particulars for wearing apparel, which had been used, are ridiculous. In her testimony, she admits that she had worn the hosiery, hats, blouses, pajamas, and other articles of wearing apparel mentioned, and she places values such as $400.00 for last season’s hats, $70.00 for hosiery, waist $45.00, gloves $50.00, all of which we believe are unreasonable and exaggerated. The claimant herself is the only witness produced who testified that the grade gave way, and her testimony is rebutted not only by the State’s witnesses, but her own witnesses.

For the reasons above set forth, the demurrer filed by the Attorney General is sustained, and the case is dismissed.
#### Mary T. Eggleton, Appellant, v. E. G. Thompson, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of no cause of action in a negligence action and from an order denying a new trial. The plaintiff, a passenger, was injured when the automobile in which she was riding collided with the defendant’s ear at an intersection. There is ample evidence to substantiate the defendant’s contention that he stopped before entering the intersection and that the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding was on the wrong side of the road when the collision occurred. The failure of the trial court to charge that the defendant was “ required to see what was there to be seen ” before he entered the highway was not prejudicial under the defendant’s theory of how the accident occurred which apparently was accepted by the jury. The trial court realized and corrected his erroneous charge as to the existence of a joint venture as soon as possible. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster, Bussell and Deyo, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

                 
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997                          
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                           88
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                  5330 
<ALLOWANCES>                    339
<INVENTORY>                    1347
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               6799
<PP&E>                        10499
<DEPRECIATION>                 8184
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                24713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         10301
<BONDS>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                       7362 
<OTHER-SE>                     6164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  24713
<SALES>                        6803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               6806
<CGS>                          4291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  6775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              119 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  31
<INCOME-TAX>                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               0
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                     31
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                     0
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual report of Fun City Popcorn, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Richard A.
Falk, President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


     (1) The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                            /s/  Richard A. Falk
                                            ---------------------------
                                                 Richard A. Falk
                                                 President and
                                                 Principal Financial Officer


January 12, 2004
HomeAbout NRCCareer OpportunitiesWorking at NRCNRC EthicsSummaries of Major Ethics Rules

# Teaching, Speaking, or Writing

The standards of conduct (5 CFR 2635.807) prohibit, with limited exceptions, employees from receiving compensation for outside teaching, speaking, or writing that relates to official duties. This includes activities where the subject matter deals in significant part with any matter currently assigned or was assigned to the employee during the previous year or any ongoing or announced NRC policy, program, or operation.
> 
*Example: An employee could receive a fee for delivering a lecture to a group of stamp collectors about some valuable stamps because the lecture does not relate to official duties. However, the employee could not lecture for a fee on the NRC regulations on plant licensing because it deals in significant part with agency programs and operations.*

This restriction does **not** apply to teaching a regularly established course at an institution of higher learning, an elementary or secondary school, or a program sponsored and funded by the Federal, State, or local Government.
> 
*Example: An employee who is a professor at a university could continue to teach a regular course discussing NRC programs provided that the NRC information used is available to the public. (If the university has a license from the NRC, the NRC supplemental conduct regulations require that the employee obtain written approval prior to teaching this course.)*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Financial Interests
          - Impartiality
          - Security Ownership Restrictions
          - Gifts
          - Bribery
          - NRC Time and Property
          - NRC Title or Position
          - Nonpublic Information
          - Outside Employment
          - Supplementing Federal Salary
          - Teaching, Speaking, or Writing
          - Fundraising
          - Representations to the Government
          - Job Seeking
          - Post-Employment Restrictions
          - Expert Witness
          - Political Restrictions
          - Procurement Restrictions
          - Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
          - Foreign Governments
          - Financial Disclosure (5 CFR Part 2634)

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020
§ 9.12 How may a state simplify, consolidate, or substitute federally required state plans? ( a ) As used in this section: ( 1 ) *Simplify* means that a state may develop its own format, choose its own submission date, and select the planning period for a state plan.
( 2 ) *Consolidate* means that a state may meet statutory and regulatory requirements by combining two or more plans into one document and that the state can select the format, submission date, and planning period for the consolidated plan.
( 3 ) *Substitute* means that a state may use a plan or other document that it has developed for its own purposes to meet Federal requirements.
( b ) If not inconsistent with law, a state may decide to try to simplify, consolidate, or substitute Federally required state plans without prior approval by the Secretary.
( c ) The Secretary reviews each state plan that a state has simplified, consolidated, or substituted and accepts the plan only if its contents meet Federal requirements.