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


Wrangell - St Elias
National Park & Preserve
Alaska


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


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


Contact Us
  Kennecott Visitor Center
 Blackburn School and Kennecott Visitor CenterThe Kennecott Visitor Center is located in the historic Blackburn School within the Kennecott Mill Town. NPS Photo

**Kennecott Visitor Center**
Located in Kennecott, AK, about 4 hours from the Wrangell-St. Elias Visitor Center in Copper Center.
Kennecott Mill Town, 5 miles north from McCarthy, AK**(907) 205-7106**
Exhibits, park film (shown in the General Store), ranger programs, bookstore, backcountry trip planning, park & area information.
**Summer**
Memorial Day (last Monday of May) - Labor Day (first Monday of September):
Please call for Hours of Operation and available visitor services.
**Fall/Winter/Spring**
Closed. If you need assistance, please call park headquarters at (907) 822-5234.
Housed in Kennecott's historic Blackburn School, the Kennecott Visitor Center is your information hub for the Kennecott Mines National Historic Landmark in the heart of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.
Pick up maps, brochures, and trail descriptions, join a ranger for a history talk or nature walk, or plan your wilderness excursion. The visitor center also hosts a small branch of the Alaska Geographic's bookstore. Stop by to browse our collection.
Kennecott Mill town is located 5 miles from McCarthy, with no vehicle access or shuttle service during the winter. During winter, the only access to Kennecott is via foot or skiing the 5 mile road from McCarthy.
Are you wondering how to get to Kennecott? Go to our Transportation and Directions page to find out!
**Learn more about services and activities in the McCarthy Road and Kennecott area.**
 Last updated: May 13, 2022
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: Wrangell-St. Elias National Park & Preserve
PO Box 439
Mile 106.8 Richardson Highway
Copper Center,
AK
99573
 Phone: 907 822-5234 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
- 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

# See a Bat Outflight at Bat Cave

El Malpais National Monument
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Applicability of 10 CFR 20.203 (c) to Plants With Standard Technical Specifications 6.12

## HPPOS-180 PDR-9111210282

See the memorandum from L. J. Cunningham to R. R. Bellamy (and others) dated May 9, 1990.

The high radiation area access control Technical Specifications (STS 6.12) provide an alternate control method "in lieu of the control device" [10 CFR 20.203 (c) (i)] or "alarm signal" [10 CFR 20.203 (c) (ii)]. This TS does not supersede the other provisions of 10 CFR 20.203 (c). This health physics position also applies to "new" 10 CFR 20.1601.

Issues have come up regarding the applicability of 10 CFR 20.203 (c) [or 10 CFR 20.1601] for licensees with High Radiation Area Access Technical Specifications. In two cases, licensees have requested unnecessary TS changes to allow direct surveillance to prevent unauthorized entries into high radiation areas (instead of locking them) in accordance with 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (4) [or 10 CFR 20.1601 (b)]. In a third case, questions were asked on whether it was allowable for a licensee to provide remote surveillance through a video camera for positive access control of an unlocked area since it was not in its Technical Specifications.

In all three cases, the licensees and the inspectors involved expressed confusion over the relationship of the High Radiation Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 20.203 (c) [or 10 CFR 20.1601]. The High Radiation Area Access Control Technical Specifications (STS 6.12) provide an alternate control method "in lieu of the control device" [10 CFR 203 (c) (2) (i) and 10 CFR 20.1601 (a) (1)] or "alarm signal" [10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) (ii) and 10 CFR 20.1601 (a) (2)].

This TS does not supersede the other provisions in 10 CFR 20.203 (c) [or 10 CFR 20.1601], and it does not preclude a licensee from locking a High Radiation Area (<1000 mR/hr) and controlling access pursuant to 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) (iii) [or 10 CFR 20.1601 (a) (3)].

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 20.203, 10 CFR 20.1601, Technical Specifications

**Subject codes:** 4.1

**Applicability:** Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017
#### In the Matter of Paul T. Gorman, Appellant, against Stanley J. Taub et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Broome County, et al., Respondents.

All concur.
#### § 123.304 Is there a limit on the maximum loan amount to a single corporate group for COVID EIDL Loans?

Entities that are part of a single corporate group shall in no event receive more than $10,000,000 of COVID EIDL loans in the aggregate. For purposes of this limit, entities are part of a single corporate group if they are majority owned, directly or indirectly, by a common parent.

[86 FR 50219, Sept. 8, 2021]
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.1719 SBA's right to recover from Seller. SBA is entitled to recover from Seller any monies paid on SBA's guarantee of a Pool Certificate backed in part by Seller's Pool Loan, plus interest, if SBA in its sole discretion determines that any of the following events has occurred: ( a ) Seller's improper action or inaction has put SBA at risk;
( b ) Seller has failed to disclose a material fact to SBA regarding a Seller's Pool Loan in a timely manner;
( c ) Seller has misrepresented a material fact to SBA regarding Seller's Pool Loan;
( d ) Seller has failed to comply materially with § 120.1720 of this subpart;
( e ) SBA has received a written request from Seller to terminate the SBA's guarantee on the Loan Interest in Seller's Pool Loan;
( f ) Seller has failed to comply materially with Program Rules and Regulations; or
( g ) Seller has failed to make, close, service or liquidate Seller's Pool Loan in a prudent manner.
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.631 Suspension or termination of Pool Assembler. ( a ) *Suspension or termination.* The D/FA may suspend a Pool Assembler from operating in the Secondary Market for up to 18 months or terminate its status as a Pool Assembler, if the Pool Assembler (and/or its Associates): ( 1 ) Does not comply with any of the requirements in § 120.630 (a) and (c);
( 2 ) Has been indicted or otherwise formally charged with, or convicted of, a misdemeanor or felony;
( 3 ) Has received an adverse civil judgment that it has committed a breach of trust or a violation of a law or regulation protecting the integrity of business transactions or relationships;
( 4 ) Has not formed a Pool for at least three years; or
( 5 ) Is under investigation by its regulating authority for activities which may affect its fitness to participate in the Secondary Market.
( b ) *Suspension procedures.* The D/FA shall notify a Pool Assembler by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the decision to suspend and the reasons therefore at least 10 business days prior to the effective date of the suspension. The Pool Assembler may appeal the suspension made under this section pursuant to the procedures set forth in part 134 of this chapter. The action of the D/FA shall remain in effect pending resolution of the appeal.
( c ) *Notice of termination.* In order to terminate a Pool Assembler, the D/FA must issue an order to show cause why the SBA should not terminate the Pool Assembler's participation in the Secondary Market. The Pool Assembler may appeal the termination made under this section pursuant to procedures set forth in part 134 of this chapter. The action of the D/FA shall remain in effect pending resolution of the appeal.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:20-cv-22628-UU

TRAYEVON BRAYE,

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. 

 /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Cause is before the Court upon Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

by a Person in State Custody Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for (“Petition”) (D.E. 1). 

THE COURT has reviewed the Petition, pertinent parts of the record, and is otherwise fully 

advised in the premises.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid who, on July 27, 2020, issued 

a Report (D.E. 4) (“Report”) recommending that the Petition be denied as time barred. 

Petitioner was given well over 14 days to file any objections to the Report, but he did not 

do so. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 

(1988) (holding that failure to file timely objections bars the parties from attacking factual findings 

on appeal).

Upon review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Reid’s recommendations and concurs 

in all her findings. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report, D.E. 4, is RATIFIED, ADOPTED, and 

AFFIRMED. It is further

Case 1:20-cv-22628-UU Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, D.E. 1, is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. No 

evidentiary hearing shall be held. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida this _24th_ day of August, 2020.

_____________________________

URSULA UNGARO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc:

Trayevon Braye, pro se

Counsel of Record via CM/ECF

Case 1:20-cv-22628-UU Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justino MEZA-ROBLEDO, also known as Antonio Meza-Robledo, also known as Antonio Hernandez-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50597.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Justino Meza-Robledo raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
§ 142.9 When will SBA issue a complaint? SBA will issue a complaint: ( a ) If the Attorney General (or designee) approves the referral of the allegations for adjudication; and
( b ) In a case of submission of false claims, if the amount of money or the value of property or services demanded or requested in a false claim, or a group of related claims submitted at the same time, does not exceed $150,000. A group of related claims submitted at the same time includes only those claims arising from the same transaction (such as a grant, loan, application, or contract) which are submitted together as part of a single request, demand, or submission.
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.349 Collateral.

Each IT loan must be secured either by a first lien position or first mortgage on the property or equipment financed by the IT loan or on other assets of the Borrower, except that an IT loan may be secured by a second lien position on the property or equipment financed by the IT loan or on other assets of the Borrower, if the SBA determines the second lien position provides adequate assurance of the payment of the IT loan.

[76 FR 63546, Oct. 12, 2011]
39–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–186 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3045, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL AMERICA-UNITED STATES 

FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT 

JULY 26, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 386] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 386, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 3045, the 

Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides two hours of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order 

against the bill and against its consideration. 

Section 2 of the resolution provides that during consideration of 

the bill pursuant to the resolution, notwithstanding the operation 

of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker in consonance 

with section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

Section 3 of the resolution provides that a motion to proceed to 

consideration of the bill under section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 

shall be in order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill 

is necessary because the Committee on Ways and Means filed its 

report (H. Rept. 109–182) with the House on Monday, July 25, 

2005 and the bill may be considered by the House as early as 

2 

Wednesday, July 27, 2005, which would violate clause 4(a) of rule 

XIII, requiring a three-day layover of committee reports. The waiver of all points of order is also necessary because the performance 

goals and objectives section of the report of the Committee on Ways 

and Means does not meet the requirements of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 

XIII. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of each 

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with 

the names of those voting for and against, are printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 111 

Date: July 26, 2005. 

Measure: H.R. 3045, Dominican Republic-Central AmericaUnited States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. 

Motion by: Mrs. Matsui. 

Summary of motion: To expand debate time from two to eight 

hours. 

Results: Defeated 4 to 9. 

Vote by Members: Diaz-Balart—Nay; Hastings (WA)—Nay; Sessions—Nay; Putnam—Nay; Capito—Nay; Cole—Nay; Bishop—Nay; 

Gingrey—Nay; Slaughter—Yea; McGovern—Yea; Hastings (FL)— 

Yea; Matsui—Yea; Dreier—Nay. 

Æ
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Marcy Brooks, on behalf of herself and 

all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.

Ultra Enterprises Inc., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22495-Civ-Scola

_______________________________________________________________________________

Samuel Hernandez and Richard 

Montoure, on behalf of themselves and 

all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.

Event Entertainment Group, Inc., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22185-Civ-Scola

Order Consolidating Related Cases

After a review of the complaints in the above-captioned cases, the Court

grants the Defendant’s unopposed motions to consolidate the above-captioned 

cases (ECF No. 11 in the Brooks case and ECF No. 20 in the Hernandez case), 

finding both cases share common questions of both law and fact and should be 

consolidated for all purposes.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. Hernandez et al. v. Event Entertainment Group, Inc. (Case No. 20-22185) 

is consolidated with the related, higher-numbered action, Brooks v. 

Ultra Enterprises, Inc. (Case No. 20-22495). All future filings in both 

actions must be submitted under case number 20-22495.

2. The Clerk is directed to administratively close the lower-numbered 

case, Hernandez et al. v. Event Entertainment Group, Inc. (Case No. 20-

22185) for statistical purposes. Further filings are not to be submitted 

under this case number.

3. Unless the parties present good cause for not doing so, the Plaintiffs 

must file a consolidated, amended complaint, in the consolidated 20-

22495 case. This amended complaint may not be used as vehicle to add 

new plaintiffs, new defendants (not including the substitution of the 

proper defendant), or new claims. The Plaintiffs must file the amended 

complaint on or before July 20, 2020. The Defendant must thereafter 

Case 1:20-cv-22495-RNS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 1 of 2
respond to the consolidated amended complaint on or before July 27, 

2020.

Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on July 10, 2020.

_______________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22495-RNS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 2 of 2
**DEC**
               MAY
				**JUL**32000
               2001
				**2002****25 captures**
           16 Dec 00 - 25 Aug 09
   Close
       Help


**DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY****PRIVATIZATION HOME PAGE**


---

**Harnessing the Market: The Opportunities and 
Challenges of Privatization**

---

**Table of Contents:**

**Message from the Secretary**

**Message from the Chair**

**Privatization Working Group Members**

**1. Introduction: Privatization in the DOE Context**

**2. Recommendations**

**3. Framework for Privatization Decisions**

**4. Divestiture of Functions**

**5. Contracting Out**

**6. Asset Transfers**

**7. Privatization Opportunities**

**Appendix A - Privatization Opportunities**

> **Actual and Potential Privatization Projects Listed by Functional Area**

> **Actual and Potential Privatization Projects Listed by Location**

> **Addendum to Appendix A**

**Appendix B - Make-or-Buy Decision Tree**

**Appendix C-Definitions**

**Case Studies**

**Case Study 1: Divestiture of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve********Case Study 2: Divestiture of the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research********Case Study 3: Privatization of the Western Environmental technology Office********Case Study 4: Hanford Utilities Privatization Project********Case Study 5: Privatization of Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute********Case Study 6: Privatization of Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System********Case Study 7: Privatization of Hanford Decontamination Laundry Facility********Case Study 8: Privatization of Power Facilities at Savannah River Site********Case Study 9: Precious Metals Sales********Case Study 10: Oak Ridge Reindustrialization Initiative Vision 2010********Case Study 11: Sale of the Oxnard Facility********Case Study 12: Privatization of the Pinellas Plant********Case Study 13: Privatization of the Mound Site**

---

**Return to the DOE Home Page**
§ 108.820 Financings in the form of guarantees. ( a ) *General rule.* At the request of a Small Business or where necessary to protect your existing investment, you may guarantee the monetary obligation of a Small Business to any non-Associate creditor.
( b ) *Exception.* You may not issue a guaranty if: ( 1 ) You would become subject to State regulation as an insurance, guaranty or surety business; or
( 2 ) The amount of the guaranty plus any direct Financings to the Small Business exceed the overline limitations of § 108.740, except that a pledge of the Equity Securities of the issuer or a subordination of your lien or creditor position does not count toward your overline.
( c ) *Pledge of NMVC Company's assets as guaranty.* For purposes of this section, a guaranty with recourse only to specific asset(s) you have pledged is equal to the fair market value of such asset(s) or the amount of the debt guaranteed, whichever is less.
No. 13,175.

#### Guardian Trust Company *v.*Jackson.

(16 P. [2d] 1119)

Decided December 5, 1932.

Mr. Everett Bell, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. F. J. Knauss, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed en banc on application for supersedeas without written opinion.
No. 14,588.

#### District Landowners Trust *v.*Bengtson et al.

(102 P. [2d] 473)

Decided May 6, 1940.

Mr. I. B. Melville, Mr. Charles C. Sackmann, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Harry Behm, Mr. Clifford J. Gobble, for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Bakke

delivered the opinion of the court.

Suit on promissory note for $4,632.20, payment of which was secured by a deed of trust on certain real estate. The principal defense was the six year statute of limitations, which the trial court held to be good. Defendants filed a counterclaim for damages for alleged failure of the plaintiff to furnish water for the deeded premises. On the counterclaim, judgment was for the *120plaintiff. No cross error is assigned to the latter by defendants, but plaintiff in error, which was plaintiff below, seeks reversal of the judgment on a writ of error.

The complaint admits that more than six years have elapsed since the last payment was made on the note, but it is alleged that defendants are estopped from relying on the statute of limitations because of their verbal authorization to plaintiff to extend the time of payment of the note, and by their conduct in accepting the benefits of the extension placed on the note by plaintiff. It is conceded that no writing covering the extension was ever signed by defendants. The statute involved reads as follows: “No acknowledgment or promise shall be evidence of a new or continuing contract, sufficient to take a case out of the operation of the statute of limitations, unless the same is contained in form of writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby; but this section shall not alter the effect of a payment of principal or interest. ’35 C.S.A., c. 102, §26; C.L. §6416.

Since the Bengtsons made their last payments December 2, 1930, the six year period of limitations as to them had expired, of which fact Melville, manager of plaintiff in error, was well aware, as his admission on the witness stand proved, when in response to the question, “And you knew that to make an extension it would be necessary to have him sign it?,” he replied, “If it was to be made binding on him, yes.”

We do not determine whether estoppel is available as a defense against the statute, but we may say in passing that the evidence concerning that feature of the case was conflicting, and the court’s finding thereon against plaintiff in error is controlling.

Our conclusion is that the defense of the statute of limitations was good, therefore no good purpose would be served by considering the other assignments of error.

Mr. Justice Otto Bock and Mr. Justice Burke dissent.