alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.81 Use in any port. ( a ) Salt withdrawn under bond for use in curing fish on the shores of navigable waters may be used for such purpose at any port, but the evidence of use in such cases shall be submitted through the director of the port where the salt was used.
( b ) If desired, salt to be used in curing fish on shore at another port than that in which it is warehoused in bond may be withdrawn under a transportation entry and shipped in bond to the other port at which it is to be used, where it may be entered on Customs Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, which shall show withdrawal of the salt for use in curing fish. Thereupon, and upon the filing of a bond on Customs Form 301, containing the bond conditions set forth in § 113.62 of this chapter, such salt may be used without being sent to a bonded warehouse or public store. In such a case the proof of use shall be filed at the latter port.
[28 FR 14663, Dec. 31, 1963, as amended by T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41166, Oct. 19, 1984; T.D. 87-75, 52 FR 20067, May 29, 1987; T.D. 95-81, 60 FR 52295, Oct. 6, 1995; CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61284, Oct. 13, 2015]
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41709

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS MORALES-FRANCO

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-740-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Morales-Franco pled guilty to a charge of being

found unlawfully present in the United States after having been

deported following convicted for a felony in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He appeals his sentence, arguing

that the district court lacked a proper basis for determining

that his underlying conviction was a drug trafficking offense for

purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). However, the abstract of
No. 02-41709

-2-

judgment relied upon by the district court reflected that

Morales-Franco was convicted of selling marijuana. In the

absence of any evidence to the contrary, the preponderance of the

evidence supported the assessment of the sentencing enhancement. 

See United States v. Herrera-Solorzano, 114 F.3d 48, 50 (5th Cir.

1997).

As Morales-Franco concedes, his second argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998). In the absence of any convincing argument, the sentence

imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 135492 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, ROBERT CALLAWAY, Justices Plaintiff,

v SC: 135492 AGC: 1734/07 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.

d0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-43 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 3, 1999

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on

Nuclear Waste will devote a significant amount of attention to

the proposed spent nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, at a meeting later this month.

The committee will meet March 16-18 in Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to the public.

During their sessions, committee members will discuss a

planned report on the recently published Department of Energy

(DOE) viability assessment on Yucca Mountain, as well as a white

paper on Yucca Mountain repository design issues.

On March 17, the committee will meet with the full

Commission to discuss the DOE viability assessment in a meeting

scheduled from 9 until 11:30 a.m. in the Commissioners’

conference room in the One White Flint North Building at 11555

Rockville Pike.

The committee will convene at 8:30 a.m. daily in Room T-2B3

of the agency’s Two White Flint North Building. Sessions will

last until 6 p.m. the first two days and until 4 p.m. the last

day.

Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the committee

meeting should notify the Chief of the Nuclear Waste Branch,

Richard Major, (301-415-7366), in advance. Other aspects of the

meeting, including an opportunity for public comment, will be

described in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

ACNW meeting notices, transcripts, and letter reports are

available for downloading or reviewing on the internet at

http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW.

###
April 30, 2012

Roland Risser, Director

Building Technologies Program

U.S. Department of Energy

Mail Stop EE

- 2J

1000 Independence Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Subject: Joint Hydrau lic Institute/ASAP Letter of March 30 th

- Clarification of Point #2

Dear Mr. Risser,

We are looking forward to our meeting with you and your staff on May 1 st to present our progress

regarding potential energy conservation standards for certain types of pumps.

We would like to clarify point #2 in the referenced letter, which addressed potential energy

conservation standards for residential circulators

.

During the joint meeting between H ydraulic I nstitute and efficiency advocates, we agreed to

investigate paths for consideration, and did not specifically agree on a recommended standard

level(s) for residential home circulators.

While the EU path for circulators represent s one possible approach, our efforts will be to explore

alternatives that may be more appropriate to the US market and based on the size of the opportunity

and corresponding cost benefit analysis

. T herefore we are not prepared to discuss circulators with

DOE at this time.

We look forward to presenting to you our planned path forward.

Sincerely,

Andrew deLaski Robert K. Asdal

Executive Director Executive Director

Appliance Standards Awareness Project Hydraulic Institute, Inc.

cc. Henry Kelly

Kathleen Hogan

John Cymbalsky

Dan Cohen

Charles Llenza
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-161 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, October 2, 1997)

NRC CHANGES DATES FOR NOVEMBER WORKSHOP ON

RISK-INFORMED PIPING INSPECTION

Dates have been reset for the NRC workshop to obtain public

comment on two draft documents concerning an alternative method

for periodically inspecting piping in operating nuclear power

plants. The workshop will be held November 20-21. It was

originally set to start a day earlier.

Workshop sessions will remain the same, beginning at 8 a.m.

daily at the Bethesda Marriott Hotel, 5151 Pooks Hill Road,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Those who intend to participate in the workshop are asked to

give advance notification in writing to the workshop contractor,

Kesselman-Jones, 8912 James Ave. NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico

87111. Kesselman-Jones also may be contacted by phone (505/271-

0003); by fax (505/271-0482); or by electronic mail

(kessjones@aol.com).

###
#### Mary B. Hughes, Respondent, v. Brown-Weiss Realties, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Mo opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 352.29 Appeal process. ( a ) Any interested party may appeal a determination made by the Deputy Administrator for the National Preparedness Directorate, under §§ 352.5 and 352.6 of this part, by submitting to the Administrator, FEMA, a written notice of appeal, within 30 days after issuance. The appeal is to be addressed to the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. The appeal letter shall state the specific reasons for the appeal and include documentation to support appellant arguments. The appeal is limited to matters of record under §§ 352.5 and 352.6.
( b ) Within 30 days of receipt of this letter, the FEMA Administrator or designee will review the record and make a final determination on the matter.
( c ) Copies of this determination shall be furnished to the Appellant, the State(s), affected local governments, and the NRC.
( d ) For purposes of this section, the term *interested party* means only a licensee, a State or a local government, as defined in § 352.1(g).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 98-06 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson January 21, 1998

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC PROPOSES $5,500 FINE AGAINST CTI ALASKA, INC.

FOR VIOLATION OF RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $5,500 fine against

CTI Alaska, Inc., of Anchorage, Alaska, for violating radiation safety requirements. CTI

and NRC officials discussed the violations at a predecisional enforcement conference

on January 7 that was held by telephone.

The NRC has determined that two violations of radiation safety requirements

occurred. The first happened when two radiographers approached a radiographic

camera, a device that uses high-energy radiation to inspect pipelines for flaws, without

first verifying that the radiation source was in its fully shielded position. The two men

had a radiation survey instrument with them that should have detected the radiation

field, but this instrument apparently was not working. Failure to have a working survey

instrument constitutes the second violation in this incident.

Neither of the radiographers received a significant radiation exposure because

one of them heard his alarming rate meter, a small radiation warning device required to

be worn by personnel that sounds an alarm when a worker enters a high-level radiation

field. The two men retreated to a safe distance from the camera before they received

any significant dose. Evaluations of the doses received showed they were below

regulatory limits.

The NRC acknowledged that CTI reported the incident to the NRC and has taken

prompt and comprehensive corrective actions to assure that an incident of this type

does not happen again. These actions include measures to make sure survey

instruments are working, that radiographers know when a source is unshielded, and

that rate meters have a loud alarm that can be heard at all times.

The violation has been classified as Severity Level III on the NRC’s four-level

scale, for which the base civil penalty is $5,500. Level I violations are the most serious.

CTI is required to respond in writing to the NRC, documenting the specific actions taken

and any additional actions planned to prevent a recurrence of the violations. The

company has 30 days to pay the fine or file a protest. If the protest is denied, the

company may request a hearing.
### §86. Connecticut

Connecticut constitutes one judicial district.

Court shall be held at Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, New London, and Waterbury.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 875; Pub. L. 87–36, §3(b), May 19, 1961, 75 Stat. 83; Pub. L. 89–558, Sept. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 705.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §147 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §74, 36 Stat. 1108; Feb. 27, 1921, ch. 74, 41 Stat. 1146; June 15, 1933, ch. 80, 48 Stat. 148; Dec. 28, 1945, ch. 599, 59 Stat. 663).

Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1966—Pub. L. 89–558 provided for holding court at New London.

1961—Pub. L. 87–36 provided for holding court at Bridgeport and Waterbury.
§ 107.1600 SBA authority to issue and guarantee Trust Certificates. ( a ) *Authorization.* Sections 319(a) and (b) of the Act authorize SBA or its CRA to issue TCs, and SBA to guarantee the timely payment of the principal and interest thereon. Any guarantee by SBA of such TC is limited to the principal and interest due on the Debentures or the Redemption Price of and Prioritized Payments on Participating Securities in any Trust or Pool backing such TC. The full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to the payment of all amounts due under the guarantee of any TC.
( b ) *Periodic exercise of authority.* SBA will issue guarantees of Debentures and Participating Securities under section 303 and of TCs under section 319 of the Act at six month intervals, or at shorter intervals, taking into account the amount and number of such guarantees or TCs.
( c ) *SBA authority to arrange public or private fundings of Leverage.* SBA in its discretion may arrange for public or private financing under its guarantee authority. Such financing arranged by SBA may be accomplished by the sale of individual Debentures or Participating Securities, aggregations of Debentures or Participating Securities, or Pools or Trusts of Debentures or Participating Securities.
( d ) *Pass-through provisions.* TCs shall provide for a pass-through to their holders of all amounts of principal and interest paid on the Debentures, or the Redemption Price of and Prioritized Payments on the Participating Securities, in the Pool or Trust against which they are issued.
( e ) *Formation of a Pool or Trust holding Leverage Securities.* SBA shall approve the formation of each Pool or Trust. SBA may, in its discretion, establish the size of the Pools and their composition, the interest rate on the TCs issued against Trusts or Pools, fees, discounts, premiums and other charges made in connection with the Pools, Trusts, and TCs, and any other characteristics of a Pool or Trust it deems appropriate.
[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 5873, Feb. 5, 1998]
§ 65.11 Evaluation of sand dunes in mapping coastal flood hazard areas. ( a ) *General conditions.* For purposes of the NFIP, FEMA will consider storm-induced dune erosion potential in its determination of coastal flood hazards and risk mapping efforts. The criterion to be used in the evaluation of dune erosion will apply to primary frontal dunes as defined in § 59.1, but does not apply to artificially designed and constructed dunes that are not well-established with long-standing vegetative cover, such as the placement of sand materials in a dune-like formation.
( b ) *Evaluation criterion.* Primary frontal dunes will not be considered as effective barriers to base flood storm surges and associated wave action where the cross-sectional area of the primary frontal dune, as measured perpendicular to the shoreline and above the 100-year stillwater flood elevation and seaward of the dune crest, is equal to, or less than, 540 square feet.
( c ) *Exceptions.* Exceptions to the evaluation criterion may be granted where it can be demonstrated through authoritative historical documentation that the primary frontal dunes at a specific site withstood previous base flood storm surges and associated wave action.
[53 FR 16279, May 6, 1988]
STATE OF MAINE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

PAUL R . LEPAGE PATRICIA W. AHO 

GOVERNOR 

July 20, 2012 

Mr. Stephen Perkins 

EPA-New England 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 

Mail Code OEP06-5 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

Subject: Negative Declaration - Sewage Sludge Incineration 

COMMISSIONER 

The State of Maine, Department of Environmental Protection, is submitting a negative 

declaration pursuant to 76 FR 15372, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration . Sewage Sludge 

Incineration (SSI) units are incineration units combusting sewage sludge for the purposes of 

reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter . This subpart 

exempts combustion units that incinerate sewage sludge not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge (40 CFR §60.4780) . 

EPA's information, which has been confirmed by our air and wastewater licensing staff, 

indicates there are no SSI units located in Maine. If at some future point, a unit is located in 

Maine, the Department will submit a plan adopting these guidelines. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (207)-287-2437 or Lisa Higgins of my staff at 

(207)-287-7023 . 

Sincerely, 

Melanie Loyzim, Director 

Bureau of Air Quality 

AUGUSTA 

17 STATE IIOUS17. STATION BANGOR PORTLAND PRI?SQUI? ISLI? 

AUGUSTA, MAINE u4333-OO17 tOG HOG AN ROAD, SUI'I'F? G 312 CAN(:O ROAD 1235 CHN'I'RAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARK 

(207) 287-7G88 FAX: (207) 287-7826 BANGOR, MAINE 044111 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUI? ISI,I?, MAINE 047G9-2094 

RAY F31,1)G ., I10 SPITfV, ST . (207) 9-41-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-11477 FAX: (207) 760-3143 

,acb site wwxv .macnc.goc/dep
No: I-23-006 June 12, 2023 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC to Hold Public Meeting to Discuss

Seabrook Station 2022 Safety Performance 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will discuss the 2022 safety performance for the 

Seabrook nuclear power plant during a public meeting on June 27 in Hampton, New Hampshire. 

The plant, located in Seabrook, New Hampshire, is operated by NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC. 

The meeting will be held at the Best Western Plus-The Inn at Hampton, 815 Lafayette Road, 

beginning at 5:30 p.m., Eastern time. NRC staff responsible for oversight of the plant, including the 

resident inspectors based full-time at Seabrook, will deliver a short presentation on NRC’s 

assessment of performance, followed by a question-and-answer session. 

The NRC determined Seabrook operated safely in 2022. At the end of the year, all 

inspection findings and performance indicators were of very low safety significance, or green. As a 

result, it remains under the NRC’s normal level of oversight, which entails thousands of hours of 

inspection each year. 

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to 

measure plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or 

performance indicators with more than very low safety significance trigger increased NRC 

oversight. 

Inspections at Seabrook are performed by NRC resident inspectors and other specialist 

inspectors from the NRC Region I office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and NRC headquarters 

in Rockville, Maryland. The annual assessment letter is available on the NRC website. Current 

performance information for the site is available and updated quarterly.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T h e H o n o r ab le M a ryM . S c h r o e d e r , S e n io rU n ite dS ta te s C ir c u it ** J udge f orthe U ni t e d S t a t e s C ourtof A ppe a l s f

orthe N i nth C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on *** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T BE GO I A M ORGA ND E, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J AME S E . T I L T ON ; D. K. S I S T O, W a r de n, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 16267 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 8 2 4 - MMS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a ryM . S c hr oe de r , C i r c ui tJ udge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 *** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED OC T 03 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 16267 2 C al i forni a s t at e pri soner B egoi a M organd e app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n the t i m e t o f i l e a n appe a l of

the j u d g me n t . W e a f

f i rm. M o r g a n d e c o n te n d s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e dw h e n it d e n ie dh is m o tio n to r e o p e n th e tim e to f

ile a n ap p e a l. W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . See U

ni ted S ta tes v. W

i th ers , 638 F . 3d 1055, 1061 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not abus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d M or ga nde ’ s m ot i on unde rF e de r a l R ul e of A ppe l l a t e P r oc e dur e 4( a ) ( 6) be c aus e i tw a s f i l e d m or e tha n tw o y e a r s a f t e rthe ju d g m e n t h a db e e n e n te r e d . See F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ; I n r e S te in , 197 F . 3d 42 1, 42 5 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( di stri ctcourt s l ac k d i sc re t i on t o g rantm ot i on s t o reopen f i l e d out s i de the 180- da ype r i od i n R ul e 4( a ) ( 6) ( B ) e ve n i f appe l l a ntdi d notr e c e i ve no t i ce of the j ud gm ent ). W e c ons true M or ga nde ’ s a ddi t i ona l a r gum e nt s a s am ot i on t o e xpa nd the c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility . S o c o n s tru e d , th e m o tio n is d e n ie d . See 9th C i r . R . 22- 1 ( e ) ; Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 19 5 F . 3d 10 98 , 11 04 -05 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATION
      OF THE


PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Peter
      J. Bergmann, the Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer of YP Corp.,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of YP Corp. on Form
      10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1999 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of YP Corp.





Date:
                November 30, 2005
            */s/
                Peter J. Bergmann*Peter
                J. BergmannChief
                Executive Officer





I,
      W.
      Chris Broquist, the Chief Financial Officer of YP Corp., certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of YP Corp. on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal
      year ended September 30, 1999 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of operations of YP
      Corp.





Date:
                November 30, 2005
            */s/
                W. Chris Broquist*W.
                Chris BroquistChief
                Financial Officer