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. 98-126 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, July 24, 1998)

NRC REQUESTS COMMENTS ON DRAFT DOCUMENT ASSESSING

USE OF POTASSIUM IODIDE DURING A SEVERE REACTOR ACCIDENT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a draft NRC

report which eventually will be used to produce an information brochure about the

possible emergency use of potassium iodide by residents in the vicinity of a nuclear

power plant.

The report is entitled “Assessment of the Use of Potassium Iodide as a Public

Protective Action During a Severe Reactor Accident” (NUREG-1633). Potassium

iodide is a substance that can be used, if taken in time after a severe reactor accident,

to block the thyroid gland’s absorption of radioactive iodine and reduce the risk of

thyroid cancer and other diseases.

This document examines the effectiveness of using potassium iodide for that

purpose in several different accident scenarios. It also reviews the experience of other

countries in using the drug, including its distribution in Belarus and Poland in the

aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

Comments on the report are due by September 15. They should be submitted to

Aby Mohseni, Division of Incident Response, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of

Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,

e-mail asm@nrc.gov, telephone 301-415-6409. The report will be published in final

form after comments have been evaluated. Some time thereafter, the NRC will develop

a brochure based on the report to assist State and local emergency planners in

reaching an informed decision on whether to use potassium iodide in the event of a

nuclear accident.

The Commission directed publication of the draft report and development of the

brochure when it recently decided to amend its emergency planning regulations to

include the use of potassium iodide as a supplement to evacuation and sheltering of

the public during severe nuclear power plant emergencies.
Copies of draft NUREG-1633 may be obtained by writing to the Reproduction

and Distribution Section, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop OP-137, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The

document is also available electronically on NRC’s home page on the internet, at

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/indexnum.html.

#
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.121 Visual or auditory materials of an educational, scientific, or cultural character. ( a ) Where photographic film and other articles described in subheading 9817.00.40, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are claimed to be free of duty under subheading 9817.00.40, HTSUS, there must be filed, in connection with the entry covering such articles, a document issued by the U.S. Department of State, or its electronic equivalent, certifying that it has determined that the articles are visual or auditory materials of an educational, scientific, or cultural character within the meaning of the Agreement for Facilitating the International Circulation of Visual and Auditory Materials of an Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Character as required by U.S. note 1(a)(i), Subchapter XVII, chapter 98, HTSUS.
( b ) Articles entered under subheading 9817.00.40, HTSUS, will be released from CBP custody prior to submission of the document required in paragraph (a) of this section only upon the deposit of estimated duties with CBP, either at the port of entry or electronically. Liquidation of an entry which has been released under this procedure will be suspended for a period of 314 days from the date of entry or until the required document is submitted, whichever comes first. In the event that documentation is not submitted before liquidation, the merchandise will be classified and liquidated in the ordinary course, without regard to subheading 9817.00.40, HTSUS.
[CBP Dec. 10-33, 75 FR 69585, Nov. 15, 2010; CBP Dec. 12-02, 77 FR 10369, Feb. 22, 2012; CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61284, Oct. 13, 2015]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Third Generation Partnership Project 2 (“3GPP2” has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal name of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

                    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Third Generation Partnership Project 2, Arlington, VA. The nature and scope of 3GPP2's standards development activities are: for the purposes of preparing, approving, and maintaining globally applicable Technical Specifications and Technical Reports for a 3rd Generation Mobile System based on the evolving ANSI-41 Core Network and the relevant radio access technologies to be transposed by the relevant standardization bodies (Organizational Partners) into                           ( print page 61873)                        appropriate deliverables (                    *e.g.,*                     standards).                

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-23537  Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### 4439 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**  **40 CFR Part 60 [DOCKET NUMBER [EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–**  **0495; FRL 9905–61–OAR] Standards of Performance for**  **Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility**  **Generating Units** Correction

In proposed rule document 2014– 01065 appearing on pages 3357–3358 in the issue of Wednesday, January 22, 2014, make the following corrections:

1. On page 3357, in the third column, in the document heading, ‘‘ 40 CFR Part 63 ’’ is corrected to read ‘‘ 40 CFR Part 60 ’’.

2. On page 3358, in the second column, in the seventh line from the bottom, ‘‘ List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 ’’ should read ‘‘ List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 ’’. [FR Doc. C1–2014–01065 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am] **BILLING CODE 1505–01–D**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23287-GAYLES

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendants Imperial Brands plc 

(“Imperial”), WPP plc, Young & Rubicam LLC, and BCW LLC’s (collectively, “Moving 

Defendants”) Unopposed Motion for an Order Setting Coordinated Motion to Dismiss Procedure 

and Briefing Schedule (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 65], and good cause appearing therefore, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The Parties shall adhere to the 

following deadlines and procedures: 

1.The Moving Defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint shall 

be February 26, 2021.

a. Moving Defendants shall file a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss, making arguments 

common to all Moving Defendants, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages. 

b. While Moving Defendants will work collaboratively to consolidate briefing on as 

many relevant issues as possible, Imperial (individually) and WPP plc, Young & 

Rubicam LLC and BCW LLC (together) shall have the option of filing separate 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 1 of 2
motions and memoranda of law on their individualized arguments as outlined in 

Moving Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for an Order Setting Coordinated Motion 

to Dismiss Procedure and Briefing Schedule, [ECF No. 65], not to exceed twenty 

(20) pages each, to address any additional arguments that Moving Defendants wish 

to raise that are not contained in the Consolidated Motion arguments, including, but 

not limited to, particularized arguments relating to jurisdiction. 

2. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a Response to the Consolidated Motion to Dismiss and the 

Individual Briefs set forth in Paragraph 1 above shall be March 26, 2021. Plaintiffs’ Responses to 

such briefing shall not exceed the number of permissible pages of the respective opening briefs: 

twenty-five (25) pages to respond to the Consolidated Motion to Dismiss and twenty (20) pages to 

respond to the Individual Briefs. 

3.Moving Defendants shall be permitted to file Replies to Plaintiffs’ Responses by April 

16, 2021, as follows: 

a. A Reply in support of the Consolidated Motion to Dismiss, not to exceed fifteen 

(15) pages; and 

b. Replies in support of any Individual Briefs, not to exceed ten (10) pages.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 12th day of February, 2021.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 2 of 2
### §58a–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 58a–4 was editorially reclassified as section 6624 of this title.
Th is opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before TANG , LAWRENCE , and RUSSELL , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Daniel A. HOLGUIN Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Aircraft Handling) Airman Recruit (E

- 1 ), U.S. Navy Appellant
No. 201900 1 67
Decided: 31 Oct ober 2019. Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

. Sentence adjudged 26 February 2019 by a special court

- martial convened at Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Military Judge s : Captain Ann K. Minami , JAGC, USN (arraignment); Captain W arren A. Record, JAGC, USN (trial)

. Sentence approved by the convening authority : confinement for 85 days and a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Captain Scott F. Hallauer, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive authority under

NMCCA Rule of Appellate P rocedure 30.2.

_________________________U nited States v. Holguin , No. 201 9 00 167

2 PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Article s 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
#### Kate Patterson, Respondent, v. The City of New York and the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellants.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Burr, Thomas, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ.
1The Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1452

___________

John Stanley Newberry, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Kenneth McKee, Sheriff, Washington * Western District of Arkansas.

County, Arkansas; Jim Renfrow, Sgt.; *

Randall Denzer, Lt.; Bruce Center, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Deputy; Rick Holly, Deputy; Ridenour, *

Deputy, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 3, 2001

 Filed: August 8, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate John Newberry appeals from the district court’s1 judgment for

defendants following a bench trial on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force claim.
-2-

After careful consideration of the arguments in Newberry’s brief, we conclude that the

district court’s judgment should be affirmed. Newberry fails to direct us to anything

in the record which would show that the district court erred in entering judgment

against him after crediting defendants’ testimony regarding their conduct, see United

States v. Wicker, 80 F.3d 263, 268 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court’s findings as to

credibility of witnesses are virtually unreviewable on appeal), or that it abused its

discretion in refusing to appoint counsel, see Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546

(8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review; pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional

right to have counsel appointed in civil case).

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B., and deny all of Newberry’s

pending motions. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
National City                          National City Mortgage Co.
Mortgage                               3232 Newmark Drive Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
                                       Telephone (937) 910-1200

                                       Mailing Address:
                                       P.O. 1820
                                       Dayton, Ohio 45401-1820



                    Management's Assertion on Compliance with
                  Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
             Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers

                              Report of Management

We, as members of management of National City Mortgage Co.  (NCM), are
responsible for complying with the minimum  servicing  standards as set forth in
the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program
for Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP).  We are also  responsible  for  establishing  and
maintaining effective internal control over compliance with these standards.  We
have  performed an evaluation  of NCM's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards  as set  forth in the USAP as of  December  3l,  1997 and for the year
then  ended.  Based on this  evaluation,  we assert  that  during the year ended
December 3l, 1997,  NCM  complied,  in all material  respects,  with the minimum
servicing standards set forth in the USAP.

As of and for this same period,  NCM had in effect a fidelity bond policy in the
amount of $50  million and an errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of $20
million.

                                         /s/Leo E. Knight, Jr.
                                         Leo E. Knight, Jr., President

                                         /s/T. Jackson Case Jr.
                                         T. Jackson Case Jr., Sr. Vice President

January 29,1998


                               No one Cares More !
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-74 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson December 4, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

NRC, STP TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

AT SOUTH TEXAS NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a predecisional enforcement conference

Monday, December 8, with officials of STP Nuclear Operating Co., operators of the South Texas Project

nuclear power plant near Bay City, Texas, to discuss seven apparent violations of NRC requirements.

The conference will begin at 1 p.m. at NRC Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas. The meeting

will be open to public observation; NRC officials will be available afterward for questions.

The apparent violations all involve design engineering calculations that were found by NRC

inspectors to be incorrect or inadequate during inspections conducted at STP from September 15 to

November 12 of this year.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that NRC has

made a final determination that violations did occur or that enforcement action, such as a monetary fine,

will be taken. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance, and to provide STP officials with an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been

made in the NRC inspection report and present corrective actions that have been taken.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action will be made at

this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later time.

###
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, CASH FLOWS AND CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
(DEFICIT) FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 13, 1997 (INCEPTION) TO DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND THE NOTES THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-13-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         921,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    109,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,141,300
<PP&E>                                         434,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,575,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          458,500
<BONDS>                                         36,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,800
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,800
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,071,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,080,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,616,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,616,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,616,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit  4.1:

                     UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DIRECTORS
                 IN LIEU OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                                      -OF-
                                 CYBERCARE, INC.

     The  undersigned,  being  all  of  the  directors  of  CyberCare, Inc. (the
"Corporation"),  a  Florida  Corporation,  hereby consent to the adoption of the
following  resolutions  by  written  consent,  without a meeting of the Board of
Directors  of  the  Corporation:

     WHEREAS,  the  Corporation  acknowledges  that  it  is  indebted to Mintz &
Fraade,  P.C.  ("M&F")  for  professional and paraprofessional services rendered
from  on  or  approximately  September  26,  2002  through October 31, 2002 (the
"Outstanding  Amount");

     WHEREAS, in order to induce M&F to continue to render legal services to the
Corporation,  the  Corporation,  M&F, Frederick M. Mintz and Alan P. Fraade have
entered  into  the Agreement, dated December 4, 2002, a copy of which is annexed
hereto  as Exhibit "A", to provide for payment of the Outstanding Amount to M&F.


     NOW  THEREFORE,  it  is

     RESOLVED,  that  the Board of Directors hereby ratifies the Agreement dated
December  4,  2002,  a  copy  of  which  is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A", which
provides  for the issuing of 1,000,000 shares of the Company's common stock (the
"Common  Stock")  to  each  of  Frederick  M.  Mintz  and  Alan  P.  Fraade (the
"Attorneys"), for an aggregate amount to be issued of 2,000,000 shares of Common
Stock  to  the Attorneys for professional and paraprofessional services rendered
through  October  31, 2002 (the "Outstanding Amount") to the Corporation by M&F,
and for professional and paraprofessional services which M&F continues to render
to  the  Corporation  after  October  31,  2002.

     RESOLVED,  that  the  officers  of  the  Corporation, and each of them, are
hereby  authorized  and empowered, in the name and on behalf of the Corporation,
to  execute  such documents and to take such additional action as they or any of
them  may  deem  necessary  or  desirable  in order to implement the intents and
purposes  of  all  the  foregoing  resolutions.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Written Consent as
of  the  9th  day  of  December  2002.


        /s/  Joseph  R.  Forte                       /s/  Alan  Adelson
-----------------------------------------        -------------------------------
             Joseph  R.  Forte                            Alan  Adelson

        /s/  John  St.  Genis                        /s/  Rodney  C.  Barrington
-----------------------------------------        -------------------------------
             John  St.  Genis                             Rodney  C.  Barrington

        /s/  Thomas  B.  Andres                      /s/  Paul  M.  Wieseneck
-----------------------------------------        -------------------------------
             Thomas  B.  Andres                           Paul  M.  Wieseneck





<PAGE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 174

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 174 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 174.1 Definitions.

When used in this part, the following term shall have the meaning indicated:

*Further review.* “Further review” means review of the decision which is the subject of the protest by Customs officers on a level higher than the district, and in Region II by Customs officers who did not participate directly in the decision which is the subject of the protest.

[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 95-77, 60 FR 50020, Sept. 27, 1995]
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0587**