alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# NMSS Guidance to Manufacturers Regarding Labeling of Gas and Aerosol Detectors

## HPPOS-159 PDR-9111220141

See the letter from V. L. Miller to Distribution (Certain NRC Licensees) dated August 7, 1980.

This letter was written to provide guidance to manufacturers regarding labeling of gas and aerosol detectors (smoke detectors). HPPOS-150 contains a related topic.

On June 9, 1980, the NRC published changes to NRC regulations for the labeling of gas and aerosol detectors (smoke detectors). The revised labeling requirements applied to manufacturers and other persons licensed by the NRC to transfer gas and aerosol detectors for use by persons exempt from NRC's regulations. The letter was written in a question / answer style format.

 Specific topics covered in the letter included the following:

The labeling requirements became effective on January 1, 1981, and that date was considered to be the "label application date." Although a cut-off date was not established for transfer of detectors labeled in accordance with the new requirements, 10 CFR 32.26 specific licensees had until June 30, 1981, to transfer all such detectors manufactured prior to January 1, 1981. Detectors intended for export need not be labeled and packaged as specified in the revised rules, but could be exported under the general license of 10 CFR 110.24.

Under the new requirements, manufacturers would not be required to provide disposal instructions for smoke detectors nor provide disposal service. After January 1, 1981, the label on the detector must state "CONTAINS RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL." Although a minimum size for the type or label was not specified, letter sizes acceptable in the past were still considered acceptable.

The label on a detector returned for warranty service after January 1, 1981, does not need to be replaced unless the original label was destroyed during service. The manufacturer does not need to identify himself on the label, but may instead state his license number as: "U.S. NRC License No. xxx" or "Produced under U. S. NRC License No. xxx." No abbreviations for radionuclides or the quantity of activity can be used.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 30.20, 10 CFR 32.26, 10 CFR 32.29

**Subject codes:** 3.2, 3.5, 4.7, 9.0

**Applicability:** Byproduct Material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mollie Schwartz, Appellant.

Judgment of a city magistrate, holding a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, convicting the defendant of a violation of the Multiple Dwelling Law and imposing a fine, reversed on the law, the information dismissed and the fine remitted. There was no proof of *824compliance with subdivision 1 of section 326 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, in respect of the service of a notice or an order upon the defendant relative to the alleged violations. Proof of timely service thereof was indispensable to a finding of guilt. *(People*v. *Sagat,*204 App. Div. 485.) The cases invoked. *by*the respondent are not to the contrary. The case of *Tenement Souse Department*v. *Weil*(76 Mise. 273, 275), relied upon in *People*v. *Whitelow*(166 N. Y. S. 141 [not officially published], is in accord with the later but more authoritative case of *People*v. *Sagat (supra).*Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60927-60928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22925]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Declaration of Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan 
<greek-i>R205

    As a result of Public Law 106-50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and 
Small Business Development Act of 1999, this notice establishes the 
application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury 
Disaster Loan program. Effective October 1, 2004, small businesses 
employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster 
loans if those employees are called up to active duty during a period 
of military conflict existing on or after March 24, 1999 and those 
employees are essential to the success of the small business daily 
operations. The filing period for small businesses to apply for 
economic injury loan assistance under the Military Reservist Economic 
Injury Disaster Loan Program begins on the date the essential employee 
is ordered to active duty and ends on the date 90 days after the 
essential employee is discharged or released from active duty.
    The purpose of the Military Reservist economic injury disaster loan 
program (MREIDL) is to provide funds to eligible small businesses to 
meet its ordinary

[[Page 60928]]

and necessary operating expenses that it could have met, but is unable 
to meet, because an essential employee was called-up to active duty in 
their role as a military reservist. These loans are intended only to 
provide the amount of working capital needed by a small business to pay 
its necessary obligations as they mature until operations return to 
normal after the essential employee is released from active military 
duty.
    Applications for loans for military reservist economic injury loans 
may be obtained and filed at the address listed below: U.S. Small 
Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, 
Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308, 1-800-359-2227.
    The interest rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000 percent. 
The number assigned for economic injury is R20500.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59002)

    Dated: October 5, 2004.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-22925 Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 99.1
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sean Y.  Fulda,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief  Financial  Officer  of
UniverCell Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     o    the Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
          ended  March 31,  2003,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
          Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report")  fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

     o    the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company for the periods presented therein.

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



                                      /S/ SEAN Y. FULDA
                                      ----------------------------
                                      Sean Y. Fulda
                                      Chief Executive Officer and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      Date: May 28, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23230]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy (USMA)

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
committee meeting:
    Name of Committee: Board of Visitors, United States Military 
Academy.
    Date: Friday, November 5, 2004.
    Place of Meeting: Superintendent's Conference Room, Taylor Hall, 
Building 600, 2nd floor, West Point, NY 10996.
    Start Time of Meeting: Approximately 3 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Colonel Shaun T. Wurzbach, 
United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996-5000, (845) 938-
4200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Agenda: Fall Annual Meeting of the 
Board of Visitors. Review of the Academic, Military and Physical 
Programs at the USMA. All proceedings are open.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-23230 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-80469-CIV-MARRA

NELSON FERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE WALKING COMPANY, a foreign

for profit corporation,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL TO CONFER, FILE JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT 

AND FILE JOINT DISCOVERY REPORT

THIS ORDER has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff=s counsel is 

hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of either an answer or a motion 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), a copy of this order.

It is further ORDERED:

1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants must be 

served within 90 days after the complaint is filed.

2. Every motion when filed shall be accompanied by a proposed order, except for 

motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. Courtesy copies of proposed orders 

should be sent to marra@flsd.uscourts.gov in Word format. The case number along with the 

words, "proposed order," should be in the subject heading.

3. Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord with Local Rules 16.1 and 

26.1, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless this action is 

excluded under Rule 26(a)(B), the parties must confer at least twenty-one (21) days before the 

Case 9:20-cv-80469-KAM Document 8-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 1 of 2 Case 9:20-cv-80469-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any 

defendant has appeared, to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the 

possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case; to make or arrange for the 

disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); to develop a proposed discovery plan that indicates the 

parties= views and proposals concerning the matters listed in Rule 26(f); and to discuss a joint 

proposed scheduling order.

5. The parties are jointly responsible for submitting a written report of this conference 

outlining the proposed discovery plan and joint proposed scheduling order within 14 days after 

the conference. This report shall address all items set forth in Local Rule 16.1(a)-(b) and shall

indicate the proposed month and year for the trial plus the estimated number of trial days 

required, as well as an indication of whether the trial is to be a Jury trial or Bench trial.

6. Failure of counsel or unrepresented parties to file a discovery plan report or joint 

scheduling report may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions 

including attorney=s fees and costs.

DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, 

this 24th day of March, 2020.

KENNETH A. MARRA

United States District Judge

Copies furnished to:

All counsel

Case 9:20-cv-80469-KAM Document 8-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2020 Page 2 of 2 Case 9:20-cv-80469-KAM Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2020 Page 2 of 2
(No. 1173

Claimant awarded $261.50.)

#### Byron C. Gibson, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 12, 1927.*

Respondeat *superior*— State *not liable.*The State is not liable for the negligence of its employees while in the discharge of their duty.

Equity and good *conscience*— award *may be made. Property damage.*An award may he made in favor of claimant for damages to his property, on ground of equity and good conscience.

Benj. F. Cassiday, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by Byron C. Gibson, claimant, to recover damages sustained to his Oakland sedan, on November 24, 1926, at about 4 P. M., while he was driving west on State Bond Route No. 10, between Decatur and Springfield, when he was collided with by a converted Packard truck, bearing 1926 Illinois license No. 36987, driven by State Highway Policeman „ W. Connors, about one mile west of Buffalo, in the county of Sangamon and State of Illinois, at which place the road was straight and level, with an unobstructed view in- both directions. The declaration further alleges that said patrolman was driving said truck in an easterly direction on said highway and immediately prior to the collision saw an Hlinois Power Company truck parked on the patrolman’s side of the concrete slab, and on account of the slab being covered with ice at this time and place, was unable to stop, and in attempting to avoid striking the Illinois Power Company truck turned to the left and collided with claimant’s automobile, hitting said automobile on the left rear side; that claimant drives his said automobile in the prosecution of his business on an average of 500 miles a week; that he was out the use of his said car for a period of 14 days; that the value of the loss of the use of said automobile during said time was $15.00 a day; that he spent the sum of $81.50 in making necessary repairs, and claims damages in the sum of $261.50.

A demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is sustained as a matter of law.

A statement filed by the Attorney General alleges that claimant in his statement correctly states the facts.

*383While we do not concede any legal liability on the part of the State of Illinois, to compensate claimant on account of the alleged damages, in equity and good conscience we award claimant the sum of $261.50.
### Subpart D—Treatment of Excess Distributions by Trusts

Sec.
665.
Definitions applicable to subpart D.
666.
Accumulation distribution allocated to preceding years.
667.
Treatment of amounts deemed distributed by trust in preceding years.
668.
Interest charge on accumulation distributions from foreign trusts.
[669.
Repealed.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title VII, §701(g)(1), title X, §1014(c), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1580, 1617, substituted in item 667 "Treatment of amounts deemed distributed by trust in preceding years" for "Denial of refund to trusts; authorization of credit to beneficiaries", in item 668 "Interest charge on accumulation distributions from foreign trusts" for "Treatment of amounts deemed distributed in preceding years", and struck out item 669 "Treatment of capital gain deemed distributed in preceding years".

**1969**—Pub. L. 91–172, title III, §331(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 592, struck out "5" after "allocated to" in item 666, inserted "authorization of credit to beneficiaries" in item 667, and substituted "Treatment of capital gain deemed distributed in preceding years" for "Special rules applicable to certain foreign trusts" in item 669.

**1962**—Pub. L. 87–834, §7(i)(1), Oct. 16, 1962, 76 Stat. 988, added item 669.
Exhibit
23








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the
Board of Directors and Shareholders


Crescent
Financial Corporation and Subsidiary


Cary,
North Carolina





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-137235 filed as of September 11, 2006; 333-136522 filed as of August 11,
2006; 333-126871 filed as of July 25, 2005; 333-108456 filed as of September 3,
2003; 333-68974 and 333-68990 both filed as of September 5, 2001) on Form S-8
and in the registration statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-157137, filed as of
February 6, 2009 and amended on February 25, 2009 and February 27, 2009) of
Crescent Financial Corporation
and Subsidiary (the “Company”)of our report dated March 27, 2009 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which reports appear in the Company’s 2008 Annual Report
on Form 10-K.







Raleigh,
North Carolina


March
27, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jermaine PHILLIPS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7917.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 6, 2006.

Jermaine Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, United States Attorney, Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Phillips seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Phillips has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
§ 4700.0-9 Collections of information. ( a ) The collections of information contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and assigned clearance number 1004-0042. The information will be used to permit the authorized officer to remove wild horses and burros from private lands and to determine whether an application for adoption of and title to wild horses or burros should be granted. Response is required to obtain benefits under 16 U.S.C. 1333 and 1334.
( b ) Public reporting burden for this information is estimated to average 0.1652 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information Collection Clearance Officer (783), Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC 20240, and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 1004-0042, Washington, DC 20503.
[57 FR 29654, July 6, 1992]
### SERVED: JULY 26, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTEROF RADIO HOLLAND USA, INC. FAADOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil PenaltyAction) FDMS NO. FAA 2013- 0286
NOTICE OF HEARING DATES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thattestimony and evidence will be heard andconsidered on September 16 and 17,2013,inclusive, in the U.S. Tax Court, Courtroom 7006, Casey U.S. Courthouse, 515 RuskAvenue, Houston, TX 77002. Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at4:30p.m. each day. Theparties should vacate the courthouse onorbefore 5:00 p.m. each day. Settled cases 

### will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper pleading(s).1 Pleadings2 may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or postal service.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

1 "Thepublic policy offavoring and encouraging settlement makes necessary the inadmissibility of settlement negotiations in orderto foster frank discussions". (Fiberglass Insulators, Inc. v Dupuy, et al, (856 F. 2d 652,26 Fed. R. Evict. Serv. 1225, 1988. See also Coakley & Williams Construction, Incorporated v Structural Concrete Equipment, Incorporated, 973 F.2d 349, 1992; 2 McCormick on Evid. §266 (6th ed.); Rule 68 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.). Rule 408 ofthe Federal Rules of Evidence "
...prohibits the admission ofstatements made in compromise negotiations
..." (In the Matter of Africa Air Corporation, FAA OrderNo. 99-5). "Rule 408's public policy purpose ofencouraging frank settlement discussions is as compelling in FAA civil penalty proceedings as it is in Federal Trials. Hence, its guidance will be followed in these proceeds." (!d.) 2 Materials filed in the FMCSA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security cases) are also available for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov.

### FDMS No. FAA-2013-0286 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST-BY 

### U.S. MAIL & FAX ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY 

### Jeanine Gotimer, Complainant's Counsel 

### Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1

### AviationPlaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3272 FAX: 718-995-5699 Anacarolina Estaba, Respondent's Counsel 

### Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 3400 Houston, TX 77002-5011 TEL: 713-276-5398 FAX: 713-276-6398 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
#### Frank S. Hartwell et al., Respondents, v. Julia M. Callahan, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Callahan, Deceased, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

All concur.