alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 122.167 Aviation smuggling. ( a ) *Civil penalties.* Any aircraft pilot who transports, or any person on board any aircraft who possesses prohibited or restricted merchandise knowing, or intending, that the merchandise will be introduced into the U.S. contrary to law shall be subject to a civil penalty of twice the value of the merchandise involved, but not less than $10,000, as prescribed in section 590, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1590). Any aircraft used in connection with, or in aiding or facilitating, any violation of 19 U.S.C. 1590, whether or not any person is charged in connection with such violation, may be seized and forfeited in accordance with Customs laws.
( b ) *Criminal penalties.* Any aircraft pilot or person who intentionally violates 19 U.S.C. 1590 is, upon conviction, subject to the criminal penalties of a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if none of the merchandise involved is a controlled substance. More severe penalties are provided in 19 U.S.C. 1590 if the smuggled merchandise is a controlled substance. In such case, a violator is liable for a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both.
( c ) For purposes of imposing civil penalties under this section, any of the following acts, when performed within 250 miles of the territorial sea of the United States, shall be evidence that the transportation or possession of merchandise was unlawful and shall indicate that the purpose of the transfer was to make it possible for such merchandise, or any part of it, to be introduced into the U.S. unlawfully. For purposes of seizure and forfeiture, the following acts shall be evidence that an aircraft was used in connection with, or to aid or facilitate, a violation of this section; ( 1 ) The operation of an aircraft without lights during such times as lights are required to be displayed under applicable law.
( 2 ) The presence on an aircraft of an auxiliary fuel tank which is not installed in accordance with applicable law.
( 3 ) The failure to correctly identify the aircraft by registration number and country of registration, when requested to do so by a customs officer or other government authority.
( 4 ) The external display of false registration numbers or false country of registration.
( 5 ) The presence on board of unmanifested merchandise, the importation of which is prohibited or restricted.
( 6 ) The presence on board of controlled substances which are not manifested or which are not accompanied by the permits or licenses required under Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or other international treaty.
( 7 ) The presence of any compartment or equipment which is built or fitted out for smuggling.
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-98-58 May 20, 1998

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $55,000 FINE AGAINST BOSTON EDISON FOR

SECURITY VIOLATIONS AT PILGRIM NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $55,000 fine against

Boston Edison Company for a violation of NRC security requirements at the Pilgrim

Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass.

The violation was found during a March NRC inspection which assessed

Pilgrim’s capability to protect the plant against radiological sabotage and to determine

whether the security program met NRC requirements.

The violation involves multiple examples of failures of equipment used to

continuously assess the security status of the station. Details of the violation are

considered “safeguards information” and not publicly releasable.

In a letter informing Boston Edison of the notice of violation and fine, NRC

Region I Administrator Hubert J. Miller said the failure to maintain the equipment

resulted in “a degradation of your overall system for protecting the facility from security

threats.” These aids are needed, he said, “to provide a capability to observe the

protected area barrier and isolation zone to limit exposure of responding personnel to

possible attacks.”

Mr. Miller also noted that the company’s prompt and comprehensive corrective

actions included establishing compensatory measures for the degraded equipment;

replacing equipment with new, state-of-the-art components; and assigning additional

maintenance staff to assist with maintenance of security equipment.

The company has 30 days to pay the proposed fine or to request in writing that

all or part of it be withdrawn.

#
#### Florence Guernsey v. Butterick Publishing Company.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case Number: 20-61397-CIV-MORENO

PAMELA TITUS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC,

Defendant.

/

ORDER OF TRANSFER

GOOD CAUSE appearing that a transfer of this case is appropriate pursuant to Local 

Rule 3.8 and the Court’s Internal Operating Procedure 2.06.00 because of the lower- numbered 

case number (20-61383-CIV-BLOOM) and subject to the consent of the Honorable Beth 

Bloom, it is

ADJUDGED that the above-numbered case is transferred to the calendar of 

Judge Beth Bloom for all further proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st of July 2020.

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

After reviewing the court file in the above-numbered case, the undersigned accepts the 

transfer of this case. Therefore, it is

Case 0:20-cv-61397-BB Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2020 Page 1 of 2
ADJUDGED that all pleadings filed after this date shall bear the following case number

20-61397-CIV-BLOOM indicating the Judge to whom all pleadings should be routed.

THE FOREGOING transfer is ACCEPTED this 21st of July 2020.

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

2

Case 0:20-cv-61397-BB Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2020 Page 2 of 2
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-045 July 3, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC ASSIGNS NEW SR. RESIDENT INSPECTOR TO SEABROOK STATION 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have assigned Glenn Dentel

as the Senior Resident Inspector at Seabrook Station. He joins Resident Inspector Javier Brand at the

Seabrook, N.H., plant.

Mr. Dentel replaces Ray Lorson, who was recently reassigned as the senior resident inspector at

the Salem nuclear plant in New Jersey. 

Mr. Dentel most recently worked as an NRC resident inspector at the Beaver Valley nuclear

power plant in Pennsylvania. He joined the Agency in 1994 as a reactor engineering intern. 

Mr. Dentel earned a bachelorís of science in engineering science and mechanics from Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Va., and a masterís in nuclear engineering

from North Carolina State University in Raleigh. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They

serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring

significant work projects and interfacing with plant workers and the public. 

The Seabrook resident inspectors can be reached at 603-474-3589.

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 151.67 Sampling by importer.

The importer may be permitted after entry to draw samples under Customs supervision in reasonable quantities from the packages of wool or hair designated for examination, provided the bales or bags are properly repacked and repaired by him. Any samples so withdrawn shall be weighed and a record showing the quantities thereof shall be made and filed with the related entry.
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. 98-203 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, November 6, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste has

scheduled a technical meeting December 15-17 in Rockville, Maryland.

Topics to be discussed include decommissioning activities; the high-level radioactive

waste program, including developments at the proposed Yucca Mountain project; and programs

in the spent fuel projects office.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for public comment, will be

described in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held in Room T-2B3 of the NRC’s Two

White Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day and

continue until 6:00 p.m. on December 15 and 16, and until 4:00 p.m. on December 17.

###
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Midas, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Nos. 333-44625, 333-58363, 333-74094, 333-89226, 333-105458, 333-101559, 333-128503, 333-42196, 333-44797) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statement (No. 333-105458) on Form S-3 of Midas, Inc. of our reports datedMarch 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Midas, Inc. as of the end of fiscal years 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in shareholders’ equity for each ofthe fiscal years 2006, 2005, and 2004, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 30, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 30, 2006, which reports appear in the annual report on Form 10-K of Midas, Inc for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2006. 

Our reporton the consolidated financial statements refers to Midas Inc.’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans-anamendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)* and Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, *Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in the Current Year Financial Statements,*effective December 30, 2006 and SFAS No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment,*effective January 1, 2006*.*

 

Chicago, Illinois 

March 15, 2007
§ 113.2 Powers of Commissioner of CBP relating to bonds. Whenever a bond is required or authorized by law, regulation, or instruction, the Commissioner of CBP may: ( a ) Prescribe the conditions and form of the bond and fix the amount of penalty, whether for the payment of liquidated damages, or of a penal sum, except as otherwise specifically provided by law.
( b ) Provide for the approval of the sureties on the bond, without regard to any general provision of law.
( c ) Authorize the execution of a term bond, the conditions of which will extend to and cover similar cases of importations over a period of time, not to exceed one year or such longer period as he may fix, when in his opinion special circumstances warrant a longer period.
( d ) Authorize the taking of a consolidated bond (single transaction or term) in lieu of separate bonds to assure compliance with two or more provisions of law, regulation, or instruction. Such a consolidated bond will have the same force and effect as the separate bonds in lieu of which it was taken. The Commissioner of CBP may fix the penalty for violation of a consolidated bond without regard to any other provision of law, regulation, or instruction.
[T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41171, Oct. 19, 1984, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-15, 80 FR 70162, Nov. 13, 2015]
*Senior District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana,

sitting by designation.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 91-2432

 

LAWRENCE M. BAREFORD,

Individually, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

 

( October 14, 1992 )

 On Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion

for Rehearing En Banc

(Opinion September 16, 1992, 5th Cir.

1992, --- F.2d ---)

Before HIGGINBOTHAM and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER,* District

Judge.

PER CURIAM:

We vacate part V of our opinion in Bareford v. General

Dynamics Corp., --- F.2d --- (5th Cir. 1992), and substitute the

following therefor:
2

Plaintiffs challenge on First Amendment grounds the district

court order to the parties not to communicate any information about

the litigation to anyone except essential legal staff. We are

persuaded that the maintenance of this order is a matter that must

be remanded to the district court to examine in the first instance

in light of this Court's rulings.

In all other respects, the order of the district court,

dismissing plaintiffs' claims, is AFFIRMED.

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this

panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having

requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for

Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
#### Azik L. Glasberg, Respondent, v. Nish Vartanian et al., Appellants, and Alfred Gruenstein, Impleaded Defendant.

No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-004 February 2, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS WITH PHILADELPHIA MEDICAL

FACILITY

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of a Philadelphia medical

facility on Monday, Feb. 5, to discuss apparent violations of agency requirements involving the use of

NRC-licensed radioactive material used for cancer treatments.

Fox Chase Medical Center officials will take part in the predecisional enforcement conference at

10 a.m. at the NRC Region I office, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. The meeting will be

held in the Public Meeting Room and be open to the public.

On March 31, 2000, and April 5 and 19, 2000, the NRC conducted a safety inspection at Fox

Chase, located at 7701 Burholme Ave. The inspection focused exclusively on a new High Dose Rate

Afterloading (HDR) facility, which was completed last March and then put into service. (High Dose

Rate Afterloaders utilize radioactive sources -- in this case iridium-192 -- that are placed near tumors

to kill cancer cells.)

Based on the inspection, the NRC has concluded the shielding installed for the HDR facility

was inadequate and that radiation dose levels were higher than would be expected for a facility

designed for the purpose of routine use of such equipment. The inadequacy of the shielding was due to

a failure by contractors to install all the necessary shielding. It was also determined that the failure of

Fox Chase to determine some shielding was missing prior to initial operation of the unit caused

acceptable radiation doses to be exceeded in unrestricted areas adjacent to the HDR facility. Although

acceptable radiation dose levels were exceeded, the amount of radiation a staff member or member of

the public could have been exposed to would have been very low, well below the public dose limit.

The NRC has identified two apparent violations that are being considered for escalated

enforcement. They are: (1) a failure to perform an adequate survey of the potential radiological

hazards before exposing a radioactive source and using the High Dose Rate Afterloading facility; and

(2) exceeding radiation dose limits for unrestricted areas.

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

determined a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to
discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee with an

opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to

enable the licensee to outline its proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. That decision will be

made by NRC officials at a later time.

###
### §§190a to 190a–2. Repealed. S. Res. 274, §2(a), Nov. 14, 1979

Section 190a, acts Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, title I, §133, 60 Stat. 381; Oct. 26, 1970, Pub. L. 91–510, title I, §§102(a), 103(a), 104(a), 105(a), 106(a), 107(a), 108(a), 110(a), 84 Stat. 1143–1149; Dec. 16, 1970, Pub. L. 91–552, §1(2), 84 Stat. 1440; Oct. 11, 1971, Pub. L. 92–136, §3(a), (b), 85 Stat. 377; S. Res. 9, §2, Nov. 5, 1975, related to meetings of the standing committees of the Senate. See the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Section 190a–1, act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, title I, §133A, as added Oct. 26, 1970, Pub. L. 91–510, title I, §§111(a)(1), 112(a), 113(a), 114(a), 115(a), 116(a), 84 Stat. 1151–1153; S. Res. 9, §2, Nov. 5, 1975, related to Senate committee hearing procedures. See Standing Rules of the Senate.

Section 190a–2, act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, title I, §133B, as added Oct. 26, 1970, Pub. L. 91–510, title I, §130(a), 84 Stat. 1163, related to Senate committee rules. See Standing Rules of the Senate.
##### 



FORM
OFGENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
 
   Award of Shares
 Rights of Stockholder
 Restrictions on Transfer transfer
 Lapse of Restrictions




---



##### 



(i)
    
    If the Employee has been employed by the Company or any of its
Affiliates or Subsidiaries for less than 5 years, no further vesting shall
occur;(ii)
    
    If the Employee has been employed by the Company or any of its
Affiliates or Subsidiaries for more than 5 years, but less than 10 years, 25%
of the unvested shares will not be forfeited and shall continue to vest in
equal increments in accordance with the dates, and subject to the provision
regarding non-vesting of fractional shares, set forth in Section 4(a);(iii)
    
    If the Employee has been employed by the Company or any of its
Affiliates or Subsidiaries for more than 10 years, but less than 15 years, 50%
of the unvested shares will not be forfeited and shall continue to vest in
equal increments in accordance with the dates, and subject to the provision
regarding non-vesting of fractional shares, set forth in Section 4(a);(iv)
    
    If the Employee has been employed by the Company or any of its
Affiliates or Subsidiaries for more than 15 years, but less than 20 years, 75%
of the unvested shares will not be forfeited and shall continue to vest in
equal increments in accordance with the dates, and subject to the provision
regarding non-vesting of fractional shares, set forth in Section 4(a);and(v)
    
    If the Employee has been employed by the Company or any of its
Affiliates or Subsidiaries for more than 20 years, 100% of the unvested shares
will not be forfeited and shall continue to vest in equal increments in
accordance with the dates, and subject to the provision regarding non-vesting
of fractional shares, set forth in Section 4(a).
   Transferability
 Adjustment Provisions
 Taxes
 Registration




---



##### 



Rights of Employee
 Construction
 Successors
 Entire Agreement; Modification
 Capitalized Terms; Headings; Pronouns; Governing Law
 Notices
 (1) If to the Company:
    
    General Growth Properties, Inc.110 North Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60606(2) If to the Employee:
    
    «Name»c/o General Growth Properties, Inc.110 North Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60606
 Severability
 Counterpart Execution




---



##### 



GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.By:John BucksbaumChief Executive Officer EMPLOYEE

«Name»
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. 99-72 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, April 9, 1999)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has

scheduled a meeting of two of its subcommittees in Rockville, Maryland.

The subcommittees on reliability and probabilistic risk assessment and on materials and

metallurgy will meet jointly on May 5.

At the meeting, discussions will be held on the proposed topical report prepared by the

Electric Power Research Institute for risk-informed in-service inspection.

The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. until noon in room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two

White Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike. Those who wish to confirm meeting date

and time or obtain further information, may contact Michael T. Markley, at 301-415-6885.

Other aspects of the meeting, including opportunities for comment, will be described in a

forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

###
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

801 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. III-00-64 November 28, 2000

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET DEC. 7 WITH AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER OFFICIALS

TO DISCUSS UNIT 1 RESTART ACTIVITIES AT D.C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT

** Regional Administrator's News Briefing After Meeting **

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with American Electric Power Company

officials Thursday, December 7, to discuss the status of preparations for resuming operation of Unit 1

at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Station. The plant is located near Bridgman, Michigan.

(Note: This meeting was initially scheduled for December 4, but was rescheduled to

accommodate changes in the schedule of plant activities in preparation for restart.)

The meeting, which is open to public observation, will be held at 1 p.m. EST in the plant's

Training Building. The plant is located at 7700 Red Arrow Highway between Bridgman and

Stevensville, Michigan.

NRC Regional Administrator James E. Dyer will meet with news media representatives after

the meeting to discuss the agency's review of the preparations for Unit 1 startup and for monitoring the

plant as it resumes operation.

NRC staff members have been meeting periodically with utility officials to discuss the status of

the plant's preparations for restart. An NRC team inspection, assessing the readiness of Unit 1 for

restart, began on November 27.

The plant has two reactor units. Both units were shut down in September 1997 after an NRC

design inspection questioned the capabilities of key plant emergency systems to meet their design

requirements. Unit 2 resumed operation in June of this year.

###