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

# Cruise the Harbor to Fort Sumter

**Constructed in response to the War of 1812, Fort Sumter was intended to serve as a coastal defense against invading forces. As construction began on the fort in the late 1820s, tension between northern and southern states intensified over the issue of slavery.**

**While northern states demanded an end to slavery, southern states were hesitant. In South Carolina, African Americans outnumbered whites, and state politicians were concerned about the collective power of African Americans. Many whites feared that black freedom would mean an end to their way of life.**

**The North and South continued to disagree on whether the institution of slavery should be abolished. When anti-slavery candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union.**

**Learn more about Fort Sumter and its role in the Civil War by visiting the Fort Sumter National Monument website. Members of the public can visit the Fort Sumter Visitor Education Center at Liberty Square and then take a boat to the fort which is located on island just off the coast of Charleston.**

**Explore More!**
            -  **Take a boat tour and see the beauty of Charleston harbor. Extend your tour and take a trip around the harbor.** 
            -  **Interested in learning more about American military history?****Visit Fort Moultrie, a****Revolutionary War fortification located on Sullivan’s Island.** 

**Return to the Resilience & Freedom Trip Idea or discover more of Charleston’s stories.**********

Sources:Hendrix, M. Patrick. A History of Fort Sumter: Building a Civil War Landmark. Charleston: The History Press, 2014.

Activity FeeYes

## ** Tags

            -  civil war 
            -  slavery 
            -  forts 
            -  charleston 
            -  fort sumter national monument 
            -  heritage 
            -  history 
            -  travel itineraries 
            -  travel charleston 

## ** Tags

        -  civil war 
        -  slavery 
        -  forts 
        -  charleston 
        -  fort sumter national monument 
        -  heritage 
        -  history 
        -  travel itineraries 
        -  travel charleston 

Last updated: May 9, 2018

----

National Park ServiceU.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
- 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

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Tuskegee Institute
National Historic SiteAlabama
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22437-CIV-MORENO/LOUIS

TINA MARIE VILLAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL,

Commissioner for Social Security,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

SCHEDULING ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Joint Motion for Entry of Proposed Scheduling 

Order (ECF No. 16). Upon review of the docket the Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

(1) Plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment, setting forth the reasons for 

relief and including citations to the administrative record and relevant legal authorities on or before 

sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. 

(2) Defendant shall file his response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days after Plaintiff files her motion 

for summary judgment.

(3) Plaintiff may respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and reply to 

Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days after 

Defendant files his response and motion as set forth in Paragraph two (2) above.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of December, 2020.

 ______________________________________

LAUREN F. LOUIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-22437-FAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2020 Page 1 of 1
- 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

# New York Shakers

Activity FeeYes

## ** Tags

            -  shakers 
            -  american utopias 
            -  new york 
            -  national register of historic places 
            -  travel itineraries 
            -  travel shaker trail 

Photo by Diane Cordell

Interested in visiting Shaker sites in New York? You’re in luck! Take the time to visit Mount Lebanon and Watervliet to see where Shakerism in the United States originated.Mount Lebanon is managed by Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon. Visitors can learn about the importance of the site with the Shaker world, see collections of Shaker objects, and participate in several workshops offered at the site.Watervliet was the first Shaker settlement in America. Today it is managed by the Shaker Heritage Society. Visitors are able to visit the site’s museum, explore Shaker buildings and crafts, and even visit the Shaker Cemetery where early leaders are buried.

## ** Tags

        -  shakers 
        -  american utopias 
        -  new york 
        -  national register of historic places 
        -  travel itineraries 
        -  travel shaker trail 

Last updated: February 28, 2018

----

National Park ServiceU.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
### §5557. Officers and agents authorized to investigate, issue search warrants, and prosecute for violations

#### (a) General

The Secretary shall investigate violations of this subtitle and in any case in which prosecution appears warranted the Secretary shall report the violation to the United States Attorney for the district in which such violation was committed, who is hereby charged with the duty of prosecuting the offenders, subject to the direction of the Attorney General, as in the case of other offenses against the laws of the United States; and the Secretary may swear out warrants before United States magistrate judges or other officers or courts authorized to issue warrants for the apprehension of such offenders, and may, subject to the control of such United States Attorney, conduct the prosecution at the committing trial for the purpose of having the offenders held for the action of a grand jury. Section 3041 of title 18 of the United States Code is hereby made applicable in the enforcement of this subtitle.

#### (b) Cross reference

**For provisions relating to the issuance of search warrants, see the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.**

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1396; amended Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, §402(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1118; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b), are set out in the Appendix of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5557, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 681, related to applicability of other provisions, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859. See section 5560 of this title.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5314, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 659, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"United States magistrate judges" substituted for "United States magistrates" in subsec. (a) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Previously, "United States magistrates" substituted for "United States commissioners" pursuant to Pub. L. 90–578. See chapter 43 (§631 et seq.) of Title 28.
- 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

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Vanderbilt Mansion
National Historic SiteNew York
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000399 27-JUL-2016 08:00 AM
### §2403. Intervention by United States or a State; constitutional question

(a) In any action, suit or proceeding in a court of the United States to which the United States or any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the Attorney General, and shall permit the United States to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The United States shall, subject to the applicable provisions of law, have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the extent necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and law relating to the question of constitutionality.

(b) In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which a State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any statute of that State affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the attorney general of the State, and shall permit the State to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The State shall, subject to the applicable provisions of law, have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the extent necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and law relating to the question of constitutionality.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 971; Pub. L. 94–381, §5, Aug. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 1120.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §401 (Aug. 24, 1937, ch. 754, §1, 50 Stat. 751).

Word "action" was added before "suit or proceeding", in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Since this section applies to all Federal courts, the word "suit" was not required to be deleted by such rule.

"Court of the United States" is defined in section 451 of this title. Direct appeal from decisions invalidating Acts of Congress is provided by section 1252 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–381, §5(b), inserted "or a State" after "United States" in section catchline.

Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 94–381, §5(a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–381 not applicable to any action commenced on or before Aug. 12, 1976, see section 7 of Pub. L. 94–381, set out as a note under section 2284 of this title.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Disposal of Exempt Quantities of Byproduct Material

## HPPOS-190 PDR-9111210300

See the memorandum from L. J. Cunningham to M. M. Shanbaky (and others) dated February 12, 1987, and the memorandum from R. L. Fonner to J. C. Partlow dated January 30, 1987.

Sections 20.301, 30.14, 30.18, and 40.13 (a) of CFR Title 10 do not authorize waste disposal by transfer of exempt quantities of byproduct and/or source materials to persons who do not hold a specific NRC license authorizing them to receive it. The health physics position was written in the context of 10 CFR 20.301, but it also applies to "new" 10 CFR 20.2001.

In your memorandum of January 7, 1987, you ask if OGC had any legal objection to OIE continuing to view 10 CFR 30.18 as not authorizing disposal of exempt quantities of byproduct materials. Your question was prompted by an internal OELD memorandum that noted an ambiguity in 10 CFR 30.18 that should be corrected in order to present a rock solid basis on which to take issue with a licensee's reliance on that provision to justify disposal of small amounts of radioactive wastes.

The issue in this office was precipitated by a memorandum from the Region II for a legal reading of the regulation in question. Material submitted with your memorandum of January 7, also demonstrates the confusion surrounding the citation of 10 CFR 30.18 and the need to clarify the application of the regulation to disposal of exempt quantities of materials. You agree with the need for clarification but propose in essence that the agency proceed with enforcement prior to such clarification on the view that 10 CFR 30.18 does not authorize disposal or transfer for disposal of the exempt quantities.

There is no objection to adhering to that view. A case can be made for it based upon a long term agency understanding that 10 CFR 30.18 does not authorize disposal or transfer for disposal (see, for example, the note from Eric Jakel to Leo Wade dated June 10, 1975). Because there is some confusion in the record, however, it is not risk free.

Therefore, we continue to urge prompt initiation of a clarifying rule.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 20.301, 10 CFR 20.2001, 10 CFR 30.14, 10 CFR 30.18, 10 CFR 40.13

**Subject codes:** 3.5, 9.7, 12.10

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017
HomeAbout NRCCareer OpportunitiesWorking at NRCNRC EthicsSummaries of Major Ethics Rules

# Representations to the Government

The criminal law (18 USC 205) prohibits employees from representing a non-Federal party, with or without compensation, before any Federal agency or court on any particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, such as a Government proceeding, application, contract, claim, rulemaking, or investigation. A similar statute (18 USC 203) prohibits employees from receiving any compensation for representational services by the employee or anyone else to a Federal agency or court on a particular Government matter.
> 
*Example: An NRC employee could not write to the NRC or any other Federal agency on behalf of a private organization to urge approval of its grant application, even if the employee were not receiving any fee for this service. It also makes no difference that the organization is a charity in which the employee has no financial interest or holds no office.*

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
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3975 — Cargill/DFI)

(2005/C 270/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22468-KMW

DOUG LONGHINI, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BISCAYNER SOUTH, LLC and 

YNTO FOOD CORP.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, and Defendant, BISCAYNER SOUTH, LLC and YNTO 

FOOD CORP, having entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement that resolves all claims 

that were or could have been brought in this action, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this action 

with prejudice and, except as otherwise agreed to by the Parties in their Agreement, each party 

shall bear its respective fees and costs. 

 Respectfully submitted this 11

th day of September, 2020.

/s/ Anthony J. Perez 

ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Florida Bar No.: 535451

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

4937 S.W. 74th Court, Unit #3

Miami, Florida 33155

Telephone: (305) 553- 3464

Facsimile: (305)553-3031

Email: ajperezlaw@gmail.com 

Florida Bar No.: 535451

Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Robert T. Slatoff

ROBERT T. SLATOFF

Florida Bar No.: 816116

FRANK WEINBERG & BLACK, P.L.

1875 N.W. Corporate Boulevard, Ste 100

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Telephone: (561) 989-0700

Primary Email: rslatoff@fwblaw.net

Counsel for Defendant, YNTO Food Corp.

/s/ Jorge L. Fors

JORGE L. FORS

Florida Bar No.: 347647

FORS | ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1108 Ponce de Leon Blvd.

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 448-5977

Primary Email: jfors@forslegal.com

Counsel for Defendant, Biscayner South

Case 1:20-cv-22468-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 11

th

, 2020 I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court and counsel of record using CM/ECF.

GARCIA-MENOCAL, & PEREZ, P.L.

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

4937 SW 74th Court, No. 3

Miami, FL 33155

Telephone: (305) 553-3464

Facsimile: (305) 553-3031

Primary E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com

Secondary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com

crodriguez@lawgmp.com

By: /s/ Anthony J. Perez __

 ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Case 1:20-cv-22468-KMW Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2020 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.9.4

APPLETON PAPERS RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND

EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

AMENDMENT

The Appleton Papers Retirement Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan is amended as follows.

Effective January 1, 2006, or as soon thereafter as the Committee shall determine to be administratively feasible, Subsection 3.2(a) is
amended by replacing subsection (2) with the following two subsections and subsequently renumbering subsections (3), (4), and (5):



| | (2) | Bargaining Unit Employees (Appleton):
| | --- | -------------------------------------

(A) 100% of
the Participants Savings Percentage invested under the ESOP Component of the Plan; and

(B) 50% of the Participants Savings
Percentage invested under the Non-ESOP Component of the Plan.

provided, however, that a Matching Contribution shall only be made on that
portion of the Savings Percentage not in excess of 6% of Covered Compensation. Such matching contribution shall be invested in either the ESOP Component or the Non-ESOP Component of the Plan in the same manner as the Participants Savings
Percentage to which the Matching Contribution relates.



| | (3) | Bargaining Unit Employees (West Carrollton and Roaring Spring): A contribution to the Participants ESOP Matching Contribution Account equal to 100% of the portion of
the Participants Savings Percentage invested under the ESOP Component of the Plan not in excess of 6% of Covered Compensation.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Effective December 1, 2005, Subsection 3.4(c) is amended by adding the following subsection (5).



| | (5) | Special Profit Sharing Contributions. Notwithstanding paragraphs (3) and (4) above, a special Profit Sharing Contribution of $1,000 shall be allocated to the
Non-ESOP Profit Sharing Account of each Bargaining Unit Employee (Appleton)
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

when his work area completes the work system redesign conducted during 2005 and 2006 or, if his work
area does not participate in a redesign, when all redesigns are complete.

DATED this 15th day of December, 2005.



APPLETON PAPERS INC.By:

/s/ Paul J. KarchTitle:

Secretary




2
----

----

| Entity                                       | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                         |                               |
| Appleton      Papers Inc.                    | Delaware                           |
| Appleton      Papers Canada Ltd.             | Canada                             |
| Appleton      Papers de Mexico SA de CV      | Mexico                             |
| American      Plastics Company, Inc.         | Wisconsin                          |
| Rose      Holdings Limited                   | United      Kingdom                |
| Arjo      Wiggins Appleton (Bermuda) Limited | Bermuda                            |
| PDC      Capital Corporation                 | Wisconsin                          |
| New      England Extrusion Inc.              | Wisconsin                          |

----