alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 97-042 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, March 19, 1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

A subcommittee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) has scheduled a

meeting April 2 in Rockville, Maryland.

The two-hour meeting, which is open to the public, will

begin at 1:30 p.m. in Room 2B1 of the NRC's Two White Flint North

building at 11545 Rockville Pike. The Subcommittee on Planning

and Procedures will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related

matters. Some portions of the meeting may be closed to the

public to discuss organizational and personnel matters.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for

public comment, are described in a Notice of Meeting published in

the March 19 edition of the Federal Register.

#
#### Fidelity Trust Company of Rochester, as Executor, etc., of Harriet F. Newcomb, Deceased, Respondent, v. Benjamin Hill Smith and Another, *935Appellants, Impleaded with Another.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-38 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 12.96 Imports unrestricted under the Act. ( a ) *Common and special purpose knives.* Imported knives with a blade style designed for a primary utilitarian use, as defined in § 12.95(c), shall be admitted to unrestricted entry provided that in condition as entered the imported knife is not a switchblade knife as defined in § 12.95(a)(1). Among admissible common and special purpose knives are jackknives and similar standard pocketknives, special purpose knives, scout knives, and other knives equipped with one or more blades of such single edge nonweapon styles as clip, skinner, pruner, sheep foot, spey, coping, razor, pen, and cuticle.
( b ) *Weapons with fixed blades.* Importations of certain articles having a fixed unexposed or exposed blade are not within the prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1241 through 1245. However, upon release by Customs, possession of these admissible articles which include such weapons as sword canes, camel whips, swords, sheath knives, machetes and similar devices that may be capable of use as weapons may be in violation of State or municipal laws.
[T.D. 71-243, 36 FR 18860, Sept. 23, 1971, as amended by T.D. 90-50, 55 FR 28192, July 10, 1990]
Exhibit
10.23.1
  CONSENT
TO ACTION OF THE
 ESOP
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
 OF
 APPLETON
PAPERS INC.
 
 The undersigned, being all of the
members of the ESOP Administrative Committee of Appleton Papers Inc. (the
“Committee”), hereby consent to the following actions at a meeting held December
22, 2009:
 
 WHEREAS the Board of Directors of
Appleton Papers Inc., by resolution dated December 5, 2007, granted the ESOP
Administrative Committee the authority to adopt non-material amendments to the
Appleton Papers Retirement Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the
“Plan”); and
 
 WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend
and restate the Plan so as to incorporate previously adopted amendments to the
Plan, and to adopt additional provision implementing subsequent changes in
applicable law.
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the
Committee hereby adopts the APPLETON PAPERS RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND EMPLOYEE
STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN (Amended and Restated Generally Effective as of January 1,
2009), as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
have in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be considered and
original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same document, executed
this Resolution effective as of the 1st day
of January, 2009.
    /s/ Mark R.
      RichardsMark R.
      Richards/s/ Thomas J.
      FerreeThomas J.
      Ferree/s/
      Kerry S. ArentKerry S.
      Arent/s/ Kent E.
      WillettsKent E.
      Willetts
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 10, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1795

Lower Tribunal No. 20-657 A-K

________________

Nicholas Blazevich,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction - Habeas Corpus.

Nicholas Blazevich, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney 

General, for respondent.

Before HENDON, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 
2

Following review of the petition and the response thereto, it is ordered 

that said petition is hereby dismissed as improper. See Henry v. Santana, 

62 So. 3d 1122, 1126 n.3 (Fla. 2011) (“The purpose of a habeas corpus 

proceeding is to inquire into the legality of the petitioner’s present detention.” 

(quoting Sneed v. Mayo, 69 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 1954))); Patterson v. 

Christensen, 183 So. 18, 19 (Fla. 1938) (“Habeas corpus is not the proper 

proceeding in which to challenge venue . . . .”); King v. State, 695 So. 2d 

1299, 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[C]laims of ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel are not cognizable in a petition for habeas corpus . . . .”).
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. 98-84 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, May 28, 1998)

NRC ORDER TO GPU NUCLEAR, INC. CONFIRMS AGREEMENT TO COMPLETE

FIRE BARRIER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AT OYSTER CREEK AND THREE MILE

ISLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued confirmatory orders to GPU

Nuclear, Inc. confirming the utility’s commitment to complete Thermo-Lag fire barrier

corrective actions at Three Mile Island by December 31, 1999; and at Oyster Creek by

December 31, 2000,

In a letter to GPU officials, Sam Collins, Director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, said the order was issued because of concern “that some

licensees may not be making adequate progress toward resolving the plant-specific

issues, and that some implementation schedules may either be too tenuous or too

protracted.” The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, located in Ocean County,

New Jersey, and Three Mile Island Unit 1, located near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, are

among them.

Thermo-Lag is a fire barrier material manufactured and supplied by Thermal

Science, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, and has been used to provide fire-resistance to

wiring and equipment at nuclear plants. The NRC has been concerned that ThermoLag 330-1 fire barrier material installed by some of its licensees may not provide the

intended level of fire protection and that licensees thus may not be meeting regulatory

requirements. Between 1992 and 1994, the NRC staff issued letters to all nuclear

utilities asking licensees to submit plans and schedules for resolving the issue. All

licensees with Thermo-Lag fire barriers have implemented around-the-clock “fire

watches,” using workers to patrol vital plant areas on a regular basis to watch for signs

of fire until corrective actions have been completed.

In his letter to GPU officials, Collins noted that NRC has been meeting with

licensees to review their progress in completing implementation of their fire barrier

programs, but have been concerned about slow progress on resolution of the issue at

certain plants.
GPU was one of the licensees with which NRC has periodically held meetings.

At these meetings, the NRC reviewed GPU’s schedule for Thermo-Lag corrective

actions and concluded they are reasonable. The company formally agreed earlier this

month to the terms of the confirmatory order.

About 20 other plants are expected to receive similar orders in the coming

months.

##
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. 98-135 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, July 31, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received seven reports

from its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards following the

committee’s meetings on June 3-5 and July 8-10. The reports, in

the form of letters, provide comments on:

-- Proposed revisions to 10 CFR 50.59 (changes, tests and

experiments)

-- Draft supplement 1 to NUREG 1552, "Fire Barrier

Penetration Seals in Nuclear Power Plants."

ˇProposed revision to 10 CFR 50.65(a) (3) of the maintenance

rule to require licensees to perform safety assessments.

ˇDraft Regulatory Guide DG-4005, "Preparation of

Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew

Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses."

ˇProposed final safety evaluation of the boiling water

reactor (BWR) vessel and internals project, BWR pressure vessel

shell weld inspection recommendations (BWRVIP-05) report.

ˇReport on the safety aspects of the Westinghouse Electric

Company application for certification of the AP600 passive plant

design.

-- General Electric Nuclear Energy extended power uprate

program and Monticello nuclear generating plant power level

increase request.

Copies of the reports are available through the NRC's Office

of Public Affairs, the NRC's Internet Homepage

(http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW) and the Public Document Room in

Washington, D.C.
-2-

##
| (1)   |  the      Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

|                         |   |                                  |   |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:      January 26, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Glenn      Little            |   |
|                         |   | Glenn      Little                |   |
|                         |   | Chief      Executive Officer          |   |
|                         |   | and Chief      Financial Officer |   |

----
#### § 122.111 Application.

Cargo (including manifested baggage) which arrives and is transported under Customs control in, through, or from, the U.S. may be transported in bond under this subpart. If cargo is not transported under this subpart, it shall be transported under other provisions of this chapter. (See subparts I and J of this part, and parts 18 and 123 of this chapter.)
USGS Publications Warehouse - Citation View 

USGS Publications Warehouse 1 of 3 
Publication Citation

Online Document Versions

View index pageView document

USGS Store

Currently unavailable through the USGSStore.

Publication Type USGS Numbered SeriesTitle Alaska resource data file; Arctic QuadrangleAuthor Dover, J. H.Year 1997Series Open-File ReportSeries Number 97-292Edition -Language ENGLISHPublisher The Survey,ISSN 0094-9140Description 10 p.USGS Library CallNumber (200) R29o no.97-292 INTERNET

USGS Publications Warehouse 

2 of 3 
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/Page Contact Information: Contact the Pubs Warehouse TeamPage Last modified: 12/01/2011 10:09:41

USGS Publications Warehouse 3 of 3
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93018, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 134.4 Penalties for removal, defacement, or alteration of marking.

Any intentional removal, defacement, destruction, or alteration of a marking of the country of origin required by section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), and this part in order to conceal this information may result in criminal penalties of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for 1 year, as provided in 19 U.S.C. 1304(h).

[T.D. 72-262, 37 FR 20318, Sept. 29, 1972, as amended by T.D. 90-51, 55 FR 28191, July 10, 1990]
#### Mark P. DONALDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-2510.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 10, 2002.

Before MERRITT, SUHRHEINRICH, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Mark P. Donaldson, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order dismissing his civil action. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to *185Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

On January 5, 2001, the district court granted Donaldson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Donaldson to file a complaint. Donaldson did so, asserting that he was appealing an administrative agency’s decision on his application for a rural business enterprise grant. *See*7 U.S.C. § 6999; 7 C.F.R. § 1942.305 et seq. The district court then ordered Donaldson to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve the defendant. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Although Donaldson reminded the court that he was proceeding in forma pauperis and requested service by the United States Marshals, the district court nonetheless dismissed the action for failure to serve.

Donaldson has brought a timely appeal.

The time limit for service of process on a defendant is 120 days, and, absent a showing of good cause by the plaintiff, the district court may dismiss the case for failure to effect timely service. *See*Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m); *Byrd v. Stone,*94 F.3d 217, 219 & n. 2 (6th Cir.1996) (stating in dicta that good cause for a time-extension is required under Rule 4(m)). But where a plaintiff is proceeding as a pauper, the district court bears the responsibility for issuing the plaintiffs process to a United States Marshal who must effect service upon the defendants once the plaintiff has properly identified the defendants in the complaint. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2); *Byrd,*94 F.3d at 219 (applying former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c)). Thus, failure by the district court and the Marshals Service to carry out their duties constitutes good cause under Rule 4. *See Byrd,*94 F.3d at 220.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by finding that Donaldson had not shown good cause for failing to effect service of the complaint on the defendant. *See id.*at 219. Donaldson dutifully submitted his complaint to the district court, pursuant to its order which granted his motion for pauper status. The district court, however, did not issue Donaldson’s process to a Marshal, but instead sent Donaldson the above-mentioned show cause order. Thus, the district court did not fulfill its statutory responsibilities, and dismissal for lack of service was inappropriate.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is vacated, and the action remanded so that the district court may consider the merits of Donaldson’s complaint in the first instance. The district court is instructed to serve the complaint on the defendant and thereafter fully comply with the dictates of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
§ 148.12 Oral declarations. ( a ) *Generally.* Returning residents and nonresidents arriving in the United States may make an oral declaration under the conditions set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. However, written declarations may be required generally or in respect to particular types of traffic at any port if necessary to effect prompt and orderly clearance of passengers and their effects, and may be required in particular cases at any port if deemed necessary to protect the revenue. If an oral declaration is permitted, completion of the identifying information on CBP Form 6059-B may be required.
( b ) *When permitted.* Oral declarations may be permitted under the following conditions: ( 1 ) *Residents.* A returning resident may make an oral declaration if: ( i ) The aggregate fair retail value in the country of acquisition of all accompanying articles acquired abroad by him and of alterations and dutiable repairs made abroad to personal and household effects taken out and brought back by him does not exceed: ( A ) $800; or
( B ) $800 in the case of a direct arrival from a beneficiary country as defined in U.S. Note 4 to Chapter 98, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202); or
( C ) $1,600 in the case of a direct or indirect arrival from American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Virgin Islands of the United States, not more than $800 of which must have been acquired elsewhere than in such locations.
( ii ) None of his accompanying articles are forwarded in bond; and
( iii ) None of his accompanying articles are imported for the account of any other person or for sale.
( 2 ) *Nonresidents.* An arriving nonresident may make an oral declaration if all the articles he has to declare are: ( i ) Entitled to free entry under his personal exemptions (see Subpart E of this part); or
( ii ) Eligible for the administrative exemption for articles not exceeding $200 in aggregate value, provided in section 321(a)(2)(B), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(B)) (see § 148.51).
( c ) *Memorandum baggage declaration for dutiable articles.* When an arriving person is carrying a few dutiable or taxable articles which can be readily identified and segregated from articles entitled to free entry under his personal exemptions, the CBP officer may prepare a memorandum baggage declaration using a cash receipt, CBP Form 368 or 368A, for dutiable or taxable articles if he determines that a written declaration by the arriving person is not essential.
[T.D. 73-27, 38 FR 2449, Jan. 26, 1973, as amended by T.D. 78-394, 43 FR 49788, Oct. 25, 1978; T.D. 86-118, 51 FR 22516, June 20, 1986; T.D. 92-56, 57 FR 24944, June 12, 1992; T.D. 94-51, 59 FR 30296, June 13, 1994; T.D. 97-75, 62 FR 46441, Sept. 3, 1997; CBP Dec. 09-37, 74 FR 48854, Sept. 25, 2009]
Exhibit 5

Case 1:20-cv-23242-BB Document 221-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2022 Page 1 of 2
Shipment 

Number

Company Name

Departure Port

Vessel Arrival 

Port

Pack Date Departure 

Date

Departure Year

Arrival Date

Comments Date Signed Approve

d?

Denied? Denied 

Comments

ORIGIN DESTIN

ATION

Service Provided

PriorityPick

DC18008482 COLEMAN 

MOVING

Baltimore

MSC Soraya/ UA844A

Acajtla, El Salvador

10/23/2018 11/7/2018 2018 12/4/2018 Only US Flag out of 

Baltimore goes to Antwerp, then loads on non-US Flag. EarliestETA to Guatemala is 12/14. Then 3-5 day transit to San Salvador. Would causemissed RDD.

missed RDD.eSignature: (b)(6)

YES NO Baltimor

e

Acajutla Foreign 

Flag

P2 

DC 19136558 COLEMAN 

MOVING

Long Beach, CA

Cap Palliser / 902S

Corinto, Nicaragua

12/4/2018 1/4/2019 2019 1/19/2019 Only US Flag is out of 

Norfolk, VA. Would leave on 12/31/18 and arrive to Managuaon 2/9/19, causing missed RDD.

eSignature: (b)(6)

YES NO Los 

Angeles

Corinto Foreign 

Flag

P2 

DC19663930 COLEMAN 

MOVING

Long Beach, CA

Cap Palliser / 902S

Corinto, Nicaragua

12/5/2018 1/4/2019 2019 1/19/2019 Only US Flag is out of 

Norfolk, VA. Would leave on 12/31/18 and arrive to Managuaon 2/9/19, causing missed RDD.

eSignature: (b)(6)

YES NO Los 

Angeles

Corinto Foreign 

Flag

P2 

DC19475714 COLEMAN 

MOVING

Baltimore

MSC Oriane UA928A

Corinto 6/28/2019 7/17/2019 2019 8/12/2019 Only available "US Flag" 

is P2. Goes over to Antwerp on US, then ships downtoManagua on non-US Flag. Transit time is 70 days, which is over the whole RDDwindow.

(b)(6)7/8/2019 2:48:48 PM

YES NO window.

eSignature: (b)(6)

Baltimore

Corinto Foreign 

Flag

P2 

DC19341670 COLEMAN 

MOVING

Baltimore

MSC Oriane UA928A

Corinto 6/28/2019 7/17/2019 2019 8/12/2019 Only available "US Flag" 

is P2. Goes over to Antwerp on US, then ships downtoManagua on non-US Flag. Transit time is 70 days, which is over the whole RDDwindow.

(b)(6) YES NO window.

eSignature: (b)(6)

Baltimore

Corinto Foreign 

Flag

P2 

DC19458139 COLEMAN 

MOVING

Baltimore

MSC Marta UA925A

Corinto 6/14/2019 7/2/2019 2019 7/28/2019 Only available "US Flag" 

is P2. Goes over to Antwerp on US, then ships downtoManagua on non-US Flag. Transit time is 70 days, which is over the whole RDDwindow.

(b)(6)6/21/2019 1:54:49 PM

YES NO window.

eSignature: (b)(6)

Baltimore

Corinto Foreign 

Flag

P2 

DC19658882 COLEMAN 

MOVING

Baltimore

MSC Marta UA925A

Corinto 6/14/2019 7/2/2019 2019 7/28/2019 Only available "US Flag" 

is P2. Goes over to Antwerp on US, then ships downtoManagua on non-US Flag. Transit time is 70 days, which is over the whole RDDwindow.

(b)(6) YES NO window. Baltimor

e

Corinto Foreign 

Flag

P2 

Examples of Fraudulent Foreign Flag Waivers submitted by Defendant Coleman American Moving Services, Inc. 

Case 1:20-cv-23242-BB Document 221-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2022 Page
No: 23-071 November 6, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Seeks Public Comment on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the draft 

supplemental environmental impact statement for renewing the operating licenses of the 

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, near Glen Rose, Texas. The draft report contains the NRC 

staff’s evaluation and preliminary conclusion that no environmental impacts would preclude 

renewing the licenses for an additional 20 years of operation. 

Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 are pressurized-water reactors about 40 miles southwest of 

Fort Worth, Texas. Unit 1’s operating license expires Feb. 8, 2030, and Unit 2’s on Feb. 2, 2033. 

The NRC’s review of the license renewal application consists of a safety review and an 

environmental review. The draft report is part of the NRC’s environmental review and is 

available on the NRC’s website. The final environmental report is anticipated to be issued in 

spring 2024. 

The NRC staff will hold two public meetings on the draft report. An in-person meeting 

will be Dec. 7 from 7-9 p.m. Central time, at the Somervell County Expo Center, 202 Bo Gibbs 

Blvd., W. Hwy 67 in Glen Rose. The staff will hold an open house from 6-7 p.m. Central time 

for informal discussions. The date of a virtual meeting will be announced soon. As part of these 

meetings, the staff will describe the environmental review process and accept comments from the 

public on the draft report. 

Members of the public can also submit comments three other ways: online at 

regulations.gov, under Docket ID NRC-2022-0183; email to Tam.Tran@nrc.gov; or by U.S. mail 

to Office of Administration, Mail Stop TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555-0001. The deadline for submitting comments is Dec. 18. 

The Comanche Peak license renewal application is available on the NRC website and can 

be viewed at either the Somervell County Library, 108 Allen Drive in Glen Rose, or the Hood 

County Library, 222 N Travis St. in Granbury, Texas. General information about reactor license 

renewal is available on the NRC website.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000381

27-JUL-2018

07:53 AM