alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 24-024 April 11, 2024 

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Schedules Public Meeting May 8 to Discuss and Seek Comments

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Ship Savannah

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting May 8 to discuss 

the license termination process for the historic Nuclear Ship Savannah, docked in Baltimore. 

The meeting is scheduled from 6-7:30 p.m. Eastern time onboard the NS Savannah. 

Members of the public may participate in person, online via Microsoft Teams, or by phone. The 

ship is located at Pier 13, Canton Marine Terminal, at 4601 Newgate Ave. in Baltimore. 

The U.S. Maritime Administration, or MARAD, submitted its license termination plan

for the ship in October 2023. The NRC staff accepted the plan and a related license amendment 

request for formal review in December 2023. At the public meeting, the NRC staff will discuss 

the license termination process and receive public comments on remaining cleanup activities 

described in the license termination plan. 

The plan addresses remaining remediation activities and final radiological surveys or 

scans to ensure that any residual radioactivity will be within allowable limits of NRC 

regulations. The NS Savannah’s reactor was removed in 2022 and transported to a nuclear waste 

disposal facility.

The NS Savannah was removed from service in November 1970 and the fuel was 

removed from the ship in December 1971. As the first and only nuclear powered commercial 

vessel, the ship is a registered National Historic Landmark. MARAD’s intent is to decommission 

the NS Savannah in a manner that minimizes any physical impacts on the ship’s structure. Unlike 

a land-based nuclear power plant, the NS Savannah is waterborne, mobile and of historic 

significance, presenting unique aspects for decommissioning. 

Written comments on the license termination plan may be submitted through the federal 

rulemaking website, www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID NRC-2024-0060, or by mail to 

Office of Administration, TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555-0001, Attention: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff. The 

deadline for filing comments is June 3. 

More information about the decommissioning of the NS Savannah is available on the 

NRC website.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalio JAIMES-BRITO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10698.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Susan B. Cowger, Sarah Ruth Saldana, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rosalio Jaimes-Brito raises argu*352ments 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 *352published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
§ 500.210 Assignment or transfer of loans. ( a ) Neither the Loan Documents nor the Guarantee of the Board, or any interest therein, may be modified, assigned, conveyed, sold or otherwise transferred by the Lender, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of the Board.
( b ) Under no circumstances will the Board permit an assignment or transfer of less than 100 percent of a Lender's interest in the Loan Documents and Guarantee, nor will it permit an assignment or transfer to be made to a party which the Board determines not to be an Eligible Lender pursuant to § 500.201.
( c ) The proscription under paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to: ( 1 ) Transfers which occur by operation of law, unless a primary purpose of the transaction leading to such a transfer was to assign, convey or sell the loan note or Guarantee without the necessity of securing the Board's prior written approval; or
( 2 ) An action or agreement by the Lender which has the effect of distributing the risks of the credit among other Lenders if: ( i ) Neither the loan note nor the Guarantee is assigned, conveyed, sold, or transferred in whole or in part;
( ii ) Both the unguaranteed and guaranteed portions of the loan are treated in the same manner;
( iii ) The Lender remains solely responsible for the administration of the loan; and
( iv ) The Board's ability to assert any and all defenses available to it under the Guarantee and the law is not adversely affected; or
( 3 ) Transfer by a non-Agent Lender of the non-guaranteed portion of the loan after payment under the Guarantee has been made.
[64 FR 57947, Oct. 27, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 24107, Apr. 25, 2000]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-70 June 19, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC, MERCK AND COMPANY INC. TO DISCUSS

APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT NEW JERSEY RESEARCH FACILITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a

predecisional enforcement conference with Merck and Company Inc.

on Monday, June 23, to discuss two apparent violations of agency

requirements regarding the use of radioactive material at the

pharmaceutical manufacturer’s New Jersey research facilities.

The apparent violations are a failure to make required radiation

surveys and an unauthorized disposal of radioactive material.

Scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. in the public meeting room

of NRC’s Region 1 Office in King of Prussia, Pa., the meeting

will be open to the public for observation only.

NRC inspectors identified the apparent violations during

inspections conducted from April 8 to 11 and on April 24 at Merck

and Company laboratories in Rahway, Somerville and Three Bridges,

N.J.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation

has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather,

the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity

to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at

this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at

a later time.

#
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22944]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending October 1, 
2004

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers 
may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: OST-2004-19249.
    Date Filed: September 29, 2004.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:
PTC2 EUR 0584, PTC2 EUR-ME 0196, PTC2 EUR-AFR 0211
Dated 1 October 2004.
Mail Vote 413--Resolution 010y
Special Passenger Amending Resolution from Algeria.
Intended Effective Date: 18 November 2004.

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 04-22944 Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
#### In the Matter of Luigi Criscuolo, Respondent, against A. Hollander & Son, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Manufacturers Trust Company, Respondent.

Ho opinion. The date for the inspection to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JONATHAN MICHAEL PROCTOR,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 176 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-80 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10686 Conference Calendar

JULIAN ROBLES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, TRANSITIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT, NORTHERN DIVISION OR NORTHERN REGION INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-331

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Julian Robles, Texas prisoner #625056, appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing his civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He argues that he was denied parole in violation of his right of due process. We have reviewed the record and Robles’ brief and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for essentially the reasonsNo. 96-10686 - 2 - adopted by the district court. Robles v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice , No. 2:95-CV-331 (N.D. Tex. May 13, 1996). AFFIRMED.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Request for Comments on Responses to Licensee Questions on High Radiation Area Controls

## HPPOS-237 PDR-9111210358

See the memorandum from J. Wigginton to W. J. Pasciak (and others) dated June 21, 1989.

This memo provides guidance on the temporary use of lead shielding as a long-term solution in reducing radiation levels and states that magnetic computer cards meet the locking requirements of 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) (iii). The health physics position also applies to "new" 10 CFR 20.1601 (a) (3).

The NRC was asked to provide guidance to a licensee concerning implementation of 10 CFR Part 20 and Technical Specifications (Administration Section 6) requirements for high radiation area controls. The licensee had questions concerning IEIN-88-79 that alerted licensees to several instances where plants had not properly controlled areas having greater than 1000 mR/hr (improper use of the "flashing light" option). Specifically, the licensee asked whether temporary shielding may be used as a long-term solution in reducing radiation levels below 1000 mR/hr (to avoid locking an area >1000 mR/hr). The licensee also requested guidance concerning the use of a computer card (magnetic card) used in lieu of a classical, physical key-lock to meet the locking requirements of 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) (iii) [or 10 CFR 20.1601 (a) (3)].

The NRC stated that other techniques to reduce source term should be used (e.g., chemical decon, permanent shielding); however, as long as reasonable progress is made toward the long-term fix (and an effective system to preclude unauthorized removal of temporary shielding exists), the judicious use of temporary shielding could be justified on an interim basis. In general, the radiation source in-growth rate should allow for prudent and timely compensatory action to avoid frequent use of temporary shielding for this purpose.

An access control system governed by computer mag-cards is acceptable and meets the STS and 10 CFR 20.203 (c) (2) (iii) [or 10 CFR 20.1601 (a) (3)] requirements for locking high radiation areas pursuant to the security requirements of 10 CFR 73 [Physical Protection of Plants and Material, Paragraph 73.2 (m)]. However, the licensee must maintain positive control over each entry and satisfy all other existing entry and surveillance requirements for high radiation areas.

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

**Subject codes:** 4.1, 5.3

**Applicability:** Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, October 18, 2017
|   | (1) | such Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2010 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 such Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Magna-Lab, Inc. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|             |   |                                           |   |
|------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
| January 12, 2011 |   | /s/ Lawrence A. Minkoff                        |   |
|             |   | Name: Lawrence A. Minkoff                      |   |
|             |   | Title: President (principal executive officer) |   |
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-189 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 4
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-189 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 4
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-189 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 3 of 4
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-189 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 4 of 4
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22806-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

KENETHIA DIXON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FULL CIRCLE HEALTH CARE, INC., 

ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,

MARK R. SPENCE, and AMALIA PINEDA

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER is before me upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 102) regarding 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 87).

In his R&R, Judge Goodman recommends that I deny Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment because numerous factual disputes about critical issues remain. 

Defendants filed objections to the R&R, to which Plaintiff responded. The Court has 

reviewed the motion for summary judgment, the R&R, Defendants’ objections to the R&R, 

and Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ objections. Having considered all relevant legal 

authorities and the record, the Court agrees that the Motion for Summary Judgment ought 

to be denied. Many, if not all, of Defendants’ objections insist that there are no genuine 

issues of material fact. The Court disagrees.

Accordingly, Judge Goodman’s R&R (ECF No. 102) is AFFIRMED and 

ADOPTED as the Order of this Court. Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 87) is DENIED. 

Case 1:20-cv-22806-MGC Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 28th day of February 2022.

Copies furnished to:

Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22806-MGC Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### Herbert A. Jones, as Sole Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. Allen J. Millard and Another, Individually and as Executors, etc., Respondents.

Motion to dismiss appeal from order denied. (See *Dunlevie*v. Droney, 206 N. Y. 683.) Judgment modified by deducting from.the amount of the recovery the sum of $403, as of the date of the rendition of the verdict, and as so modified affirmed, together with the order, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concurred.
§ 136.140 Employment. ( a ) No qualified individual with handicaps shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program, or activity conducted by the Agency.
( b ) The definitions, requirements and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791) as established by the EEOC in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
§ 127.509 What is the process for such an appeal? ( a ) *Notice of appeal.* When the contacting officer rejects a recommendation by SBA's Procurement Center Representative to make a requirement available for the WOSB Program, he or she must notify the Procurement Center Representative as soon as practicable. If the Administrator intends to appeal the decision, SBA must notify the contracting officer no later than five (5) business days after receiving notice of the contracting officer's decision.
( b ) *Suspension of action.* Upon receipt of notice of SBA's intent to appeal, the contracting officer must suspend further action regarding the procurement until the Secretary of the department or head of the agency issues a written decision on the appeal, unless the Secretary of the department or head of the agency makes a written determination that urgent and compelling circumstances which significantly affect the interests of the United States compel award of the contract.
( c ) *Deadline for appeal.* Within fifteen (15) business days of SBA's notification to the CO, SBA must file its formal appeal with the Secretary of the department or head of the agency, or the appeal will be deemed withdrawn.
( d ) *Decision.* The Secretary of the department or head of the agency must specify in writing the reasons for a denial of an appeal brought under this section.
### §640d–11. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 93–531, §12, Dec. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 1716; Pub. L. 96–305, §5, July 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 932; Pub. L. 100–666, §4(a), Nov. 16, 1988, 102 Stat. 3929; Pub. L. 100–696, title IV, §406, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4592; Pub. L. 102–180, §3(a)–(c), Dec. 2, 1991, 105 Stat. 1230; Pub. L. 112–166, §2(u), Aug. 10, 2012, 126 Stat. 1288, which related to the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### **CHAPTER 30—WORKFORCE INVESTMENT SYSTEMS**
### §1414. Asset transfer rules

#### (a) Applicability and scope

A transfer of assets from a multiemployer plan to another plan shall comply with asset-transfer rules which shall be adopted by the multiemployer plan and which—

(1) do not unreasonably restrict the transfer of plan assets in connection with the transfer of plan liabilities, and

(2) operate and are applied uniformly with respect to each proposed transfer, except that the rules may provide for reasonable variations taking into account the potential financial impact of a proposed transfer on the multiemployer plan.

Plan rules authorizing asset transfers consistent with the requirements of section 1412(c)(3) of this title shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of this subsection.

#### (b) Exemption of de minimis transfers

The corporation shall prescribe regulations which exempt de minimis transfers of assets from the requirements of this part.

#### (c) Written reciprocity agreements

This part shall not apply to transfers of assets pursuant to written reciprocity agreements, except to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the corporation.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4234, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, §104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1247.)
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 120.1702 Program fee.

*Ongoing Guarantee Fee.* The Ongoing Guarantee Fee is payable to SBA, and it is calculated and payable monthly from the amounts received in respect of interest on Loan Interests in the SBA-guaranteed portion of a Pool. This amount is set forth in the First Lien Position 504 Loan Pool Guarantee Agreement. This fee is used to pay program losses.
### §1362. Indian tribes

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, brought by any Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 89–635, §1, Oct. 10, 1966, 80 Stat. 880.)
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Clinical 
and Treatment Subcommittee, October 28, 2004, 8 a.m. to October 29, 
2004, 4 p.m., Double Tree Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852 which was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2004, 
V.69, 185, P.57328.
    The meeting will be held at the Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill 
Road, Bethesda, MD 20814 instead of at the Doubletree Hotel. The 
meeting location is the only change. The meeting is closed to the 
public.

    Dated: October 12, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-23343 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Patrick A. FLAYTER, Claimant-Appellee, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 01-7093.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 24, 2002.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to withdraw his appeal pursuant to the Solicitor General’s decision not to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in *Allen v. Principi*237 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir.2001), involving issues similar to those presented in this appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.