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.

#### § 10.201 Applicability.

Title II of Pub. L. 102-182 (105 Stat. 1233), entitled the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) and codified at 19 U.S.C. 3201 through 3206, authorizes the President to proclaim duty-free treatment for all eligible articles from any beneficiary country and to designate countries as beneficiary countries. The provisions of §§ 10.202 through 10.207 set forth the legal requirements and procedures that apply for purposes of obtaining that duty-free treatment for certain articles from a beneficiary country which are identified for purposes of that treatment in General Note 11, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and in the “Special” rate of duty column of the HTSUS. Provisions regarding preferential treatment of apparel and other textile articles under the ATPA are contained in §§ 10.241 through 10.248, and provisions regarding preferential treatment of tuna and certain other non-textile articles under the ATPA are contained in §§ 10.251 through 10.257.

[T.D. 03-16, 68 FR 14486, Mar. 25, 2003; 68 FR 67338, Dec. 1, 2003]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6305
LEROY A. MOSES, a/k/a Jawad Amir Musa, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL V. PUGH, Warden, of U.S.P. Allenwood, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3585) Submitted: May 13, 2004 D ecided: May 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy A. Moses, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Leroy A. Moses seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moses 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
### §607. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–306, title III, §311, Oct. 14, 1982, 96 Stat. 1442

Section, Pub. L. 90–83, §6(g), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 221, provided that in carrying out provisions of this chapter Secretary of Labor was authorized to issued regulations, delegate authority, and utilize services of the Civil Service Commission for making such investigations as might have been mutually agreeable.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40845 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE FRANCISCO ESTRADA, also known as Juan Sergio Ponce, also known as Miguel Zavala Zavala, also known as Juan Sergio Mendez-Ponce, also known as Juan Antonio Mendez-Ponce, also known as Jose Francisco Anthony Estrada, also known as Miguel Rubio Escobar, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-106-1

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Francisco Estrada has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Estrada has not responded to the motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issueNo. 01-40845 -2- for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
No: 24-013 February 20, 2024 

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Proposes to Amend Licensing, Inspection, and Annual Fees for Fiscal Year 2024

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on proposed changes to 

the licensing, inspection, special projects, and annual fees it will charge applicants and licensees 

for fiscal year 2024. 

The proposed fee rule, published today in the Federal Register, is based on the FY 2024 

Congressional Budget Justification as a full-year appropriation has not yet been enacted. The 

final rule will be based on the NRC’s actual appropriation, and the agency will update the final 

fee schedule as appropriate. The NRC’s proposed FY 2024 budget is approximately $1.01 

billion. The agency would use $27.1 million in carryover funds, making the total budget 

authority used in the FY 2024 proposed fee rule $979.2 million, an increase of $52.1 million 

from FY 2023. 

Under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, the NRC is required to 

recover approximately 100 percent of its total budget authority in FY 2024, except funds for 

specific excluded activities.

After accounting for the exclusions from the fee recovery requirement and net billing 

adjustments, the NRC must recover approximately $825.7 million in fees in FY 2024. Of this 

amount, the NRC estimates that $205.5 million will be recovered through service fees under 10 

CFR Part 170 and $620.2 million through annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171. 

Compared to FY 2023, the proposed annual fees would decrease for the operating power 

reactors fee class. This fee does not exceed the cap established by NEIMA. The proposed annual 

fees would increase for fuel facilities, spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning activities, nonpower production or utilization facilities, transportation activities for the U.S. Department of 

Energy, the non-DOE uranium recovery licensee, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 

Act Program, and all materials users fee categories. 

The proposed fee rule includes several other changes affecting licensees and applicants. 

The NRC proposes to increase the hourly rate for services from $300 to $321 for FY 2024, and 

license application fees would be adjusted accordingly. In addition, the proposed rule would 

amend NRC’s payment methods to align with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s “No-Cash 

No-Check” policy, to remove paper forms of payment and provide that payments be made 

electronically using the methods accepted at www.pay.gov. 

The proposed rule includes detailed instructions on how to submit written comments.

Comments will be accepted through March 21.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138790

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138790 COA: 281381 Wayne CC: 07-009031 JOVAN DAMAR LAROCK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

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

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

COMMISSION AUTHORIZES RESTART OF MILLSTONE UNIT 3 WHEN PERMITTED

BY NRC STAFF

No. 98-90 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, June 15, 1998)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given its permission for the restart of

the Millstone Unit 3 nuclear power plant at Waterford, Conn., once the NRC staff

agrees that appropriate pre-operational steps have been taken.

The Commission’s action does not mean that resumption of operations is

imminent. But it transfers from the NRC Commissioners to the staff Executive Director

for Operations the responsibility for verifying that all remaining restart related actions

have been completed and for authorizing Unit 3's restart.

In taking this step, the Commission has concurred with a recommendation from

the staff presented during an eight-hour briefing on June 2. The staff concluded that

Northeast Utilities has made improvements and set up adequate programs to safely

operate the plant, which has been shut down for more than two years. The NRC staff

also reported that plant activities now conform to the licensed design, that an adequate

corrective actions program has been set up, and that the utility has demonstrated its

ability to begin power operations.

In a memorandum to the staff which responded to the recommendations at the

latest Millstone briefing, the Commission stated that third party oversight by Little

Harbor consultants would continue until the Commission concludes it is no longer

required. In a similar action last month, the Commission agreed that Northeast Utilities

had made appropriate progress in an employee concerns program and a safety

conscious work environment, management of backlog items, and oversight and quality

assurance to support restart of Unit 3.

Some open technical matters, including some testing and one license

amendment, remain to be resolved before Millstone Unit 3 can proceed to restart. In

addition, the NRC staff has confirmed Northeast Utilities’ commitment to resume

operations in a gradual, deliberate manner, pausing at designated “hold points” for

evaluation during power escalation. NRC also plans around-the-clock monitoring by

inspectors on site in the plant control room during key aspects of the entire restart

process.
The transfer of restart authorization for Millstone Unit 3 from the Commission to

the staff removes it from “Category 3" and redesignates it as a “Category 2" facility on

the NRC Watch List. Category 3 is reserved for plants which must have formal

Commission concurrence to resume operations. Category 2 plants are authorized to

operate but are closely monitored by the NRC. Millstone Units 1 and 2 remain

“Category 3” plants.

###

EDITORS: Copies of the Commission’s staff requirements memorandum concerning

restart operations will be posted on the NRC internet web page at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-98-125 November 25, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

UTILITY TO BRIEF NRC ON MILLSTONE 1 DECOMMISSIONING PLANS

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hear from Northeast Utilities

representatives on Wednesday, December 2, about decommissioning plans for the

Millstone 1 nuclear power plant. Northeast Utilities owns Millstone 1, a boiling-water

reactor in Waterford, Conn.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. in Room 11-B-2 at NRC

headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. It will be open to the public for

observation.

Northeast Utilities announced in July it was permanently closing the plant,

following the completion of an analysis that showed it would not be economically viable

for the company to continue to operate the unit. The utility has not yet stated which

method of decommissioning it plans to use; options include immediate dismantlement

or storage of the facility for a certain period of time before dismantlement begins to

allow radioactivity to decrease.

Millstone 1 began commercial operation in March 1971. After the 660-megawatt

reactor was shut down for a scheduled refueling outage in November 1995, the NRC

required that it remain out of service until safety concerns were addressed. It never

returned to service.

#
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 9, 2016

No. 04-16-00388-CR

Raul Aguero AYALA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B14466

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s pro se brief is presently due January 3, 2017. Appellant has filed a motion for 

extension of time, stating that he needs additional time to file his brief. We GRANT appellant an 

extension of time to file his pro se brief. Appellant’s brief is due February 1, 2017. Appellant 

also requests “legal assistance that is not an attorney.” That request is DENIED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-60

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Monday, August 18, 1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

NRC AND FPC OFFICIALS TO MEET AT CRYSTAL RIVER ON AUGUST 21

TO DISCUSS STATUS OF PROGRESS TOWARD RESTART OF UNIT 3 REACTOR

Meetings Open To Public Observation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with Florida Power Corporation

management at Crystal River on Thursday, August 21 to discuss the status of company efforts to

ready the Crystal River nuclear power plant for restart later this year.

Officials will meet at 7:30 a.m. (EDT) in Room 101 of the nuclear plant’s administration

building to discuss matters related to control room habitability during postulated emergency

conditions. The meeting will be open to observation by interested members of the public.

The main meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. at the plant training center, located south of town

on West Venable Street, to discuss the status of the company’s overall plan to ready the nuclear

plant for restart. It is also open to observation by the public.

Both meetings are between the NRC and the licensee, Florida Power Corporation. Interested

members of the public may attend to observe but not to participate. Because of the short time

available between sessions, NRC officials will be available at the conclusion of the second

meeting to answer questions from those who attend.

#
§ 6.31 Special requirements for medical records. ( a ) A system manager who receives a request from an individual for access to those official medical records which belong to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and are described in Chapter 339, Federal Personnel Manual (medical records about entrance qualifications or fitness for duty, or medical records which are otherwise filed in the Official Personnel Folder), shall refer the pertinent system of records to a Federal Medical Officer for review and determination in accordance with this section. If no Federal Medical Officer is available to make the determination required by this section, the system manager shall refer the request and the medical reports concerned to the Office of Personnel Management for determination.
( b ) If, in the opinion of a Federal Medical Officer, medical records requested by the subject individual indicate a condition about which a prudent physician would hesitate to inform a person suffering from such a condition of its exact nature and probable outcome, the system manager shall not release the medical information to the subject individual nor to any person other than a physician designated in writing by the subject individual, or the guardian or conservator of the individual.
( c ) If, in the opinion of a Federal Medical Officer, the medical information does not indicate the presence of any condition which would cause a prudent physician to hesitate to inform a person suffering from such a condition of its exact nature and probable outcome, the system manager shall release it to the subject individual or to any person, firm, or organization which the individual authorizes in writing to receive it.
No: 23-076 November 22, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Opens Hearing Opportunity for Hermes 2 

Test Reactor Facility Construction Permit Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published in the Federal Register a notice of 

opportunity to intervene in an adjudicatory hearing on Kairos Power’s application for a 

construction permit to build the Hermes 2 test reactor facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

Petitions to intervene in a hearing must be filed by January 22, 2024, by anyone whose 

interest may be affected by the proposed issuance of a construction permit and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding. More information on the hearing process is available on 

the NRC website.

Kairos submitted in July an application requesting permission to build the facility with 

two 35-megawatt thermal test reactors that are similar in design to the Hermes design NRC has 

previously reviewed. The two molten salt-cooled, high-temperature reactors would share a power 

generation system. 

The company will have to submit a separate application for an operating license in the 

future.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations as filed
as part of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           NOV-7-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAY-8-1999
<CASH>                                           5,836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                       222
<INVENTORY>                                     70,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,463
<PP&E>                                          90,076
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,842
<BONDS>                                         45,248
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   188,814
<SALES>                                        121,239
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,655
<CGS>                                           92,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,373
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    91
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,886)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,536
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,200)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.63)


</TABLE>
#### § 64.6 List of eligible communities.

FEMA will maintain a list of communities eligible for the sale of flood insurance pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128). This list will be published and maintained on the internet or through another comparable method.

[85 FR 68790, Oct. 30, 2020]
#### § 50.31 What opportunity will the requester have to respond to comments?

Following the Web site posting described in § 50.30(b), the requester will have 60 days to respond to any comment or evidence that was timely submitted to the Department in accordance with § 50.30(a)(1) and (a)(2)(iv).
AO187(Rev.7/87)ExhibitandWitnessList

U NITED STATESD ISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UN ITED STATES OF AM ERICA

V .

CESARHOM CIODUARTEJAQUEZ

EXH IBIT AND W ITNESSLIST

CaseN um ber: 20-M C-22829-1* A

PRESIDING JUDGE PLAm TIFF'SATTORNEY DEFENDANT'SATTORNEY

LaurenFleischerLouis JasonW u/RebeccaHaciski Henl'yBell/luanM urillo

TRIALDATE(S) COURTREPORTER COURTROOM DEPUTY

ExtraditionHrg.-1/26/2021 EllenRassie A.L.W illiams

PLF. DEF. DATE M ARKED ADMITTED DESCRIPTION OFEXHIBITS.Ayko w lTr ssEs

NO. NO. OFFERED

l 1/26/202l X ExtraditionPackage

*Includeanotationastothelocationofanyexhibitnotheldwiththecaselileornotavailablebecauseofsize.

Page1of 1 Pages

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2021 Page 1 of 1
### §7327. Customs laws applicable

The provisions of law applicable to the remission or mitigation by the Secretary of forfeitures under the customs laws shall apply to forfeitures incurred or alleged to have been incurred under the internal revenue laws.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 871; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".
§ 68.4 Hearing board. ( a ) Each hearing shall be conducted by a three member hearing board (hereinafter “board”). The board shall consist of a hearing officer (hereinafter “Judge”) appointed by the Administrator based upon a recommendation by the Office of Personnel Management and two members selected by the Judge who are qualified in the technical field of flood elevation determinations. The Judge shall consult with anyone he deems appropriate to determine the technical qualifications of individuals being considered for appointment to the board. The board members shall not be FEMA employees.
( b ) The Judge shall be responsible for conducting the hearing, and shall make all procedural rulings during the course of the hearing. Any formal orders and the final decision on the merits of the hearing shall be made by a majority of the board. A dissenting member may submit a separate opinion for the record.
( c ) A technically qualified alternate will be appointed by the Judge as a member of the board when a technically qualified appointed member becomes unavailable. The Administrator will appoint an alternate Judge if the appointed Judge becomes unavailable.