alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### 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.

#### § 151.91 Brix values of unconcentrated natural fruit juices.

The following values have been determined to be the average Brix values of unconcentrated natural fruit juices in the trade and commerce of the United States, for the purposes of the provisions of the Additional U.S. Notes to Chapter 20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) (19 U.S.C. 1202), and will be used in determining the dutiable quantity of imports of concentrated fruit juices, using the procedure set forth in Additional U.S. Note 2, Chapter 20, HTSUS:

| Kind of fruit juice | Average Brix value (degrees) |
| --- | --- |
| Apple | 13.3 |
| Apricot | 14.3 |
| Bilberry (Whortleberry, Vaccinium Myrtillium) | 13.4 |
| Black currant | 15.0 |
| Blackberry | 10.0 |
| Black raspberry | 11.1 |
| Blueberry | 14.1 |
| Boysenberry | 10.0 |
| Carob | 40.0 |
| Cherry | 14.3 |
| Crabapple | 15.4 |
| Cranberry | 10.5 |
| Date | 18.5 |
| Dewberry | 10.0 |
| Elderberry | 11.0 |
| Fig | 18.2 |
| Gooseberry | 8.3 |
| Grape (Vitis Vinifera) | 21.5 |
| Grape (Slipskin varieties) | 16.0 |
| Grapefruit | 10.2 |
| Guava | 7.7 |
| Lemon | 8.9 |
| Lime | 10.0 |
| Loganberry | 10.5 |
| Mango | 17.0 |
| Naranjilla | 10.5 |
| Orange | 11.8 |
| Papaya | 10.2 |
| Passion Fruit | 15.3 |
| Peach | 11.8 |
| Pear | 15.4 |
| Pineapple | 14.3 |
| Plum | 14.3 |
| Pomegranate | 18.2 |
| Prune | 18.5 |
| Quince | 13.3 |
| Raisin | 18.5 |
| Raspberry (Red raspberry) | 10.5 |
| Red currant | 10.5 |
| Soursop (Guanabana, Annono Muricata) | 16.0 |
| Strawberry | 8.0 |
| Tamarind | 55.0 |
| Tangerine | 11.5 |
| Youngberry | 10.0 |

[T.D. 73-175, 38 FR 17470, July 2, 1973, as amended by T.D. 74-41, 39 FR 2470, Jan. 23, 1974; T.D. 84-173, 49 FR 31852, Aug. 9, 1984; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51269, Dec. 21, 1988]
#### Minnie Goodcuff, Appellant, v. Lillian Kahn, Respondent.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff as a consequence of slipping on a patch of ice formed by the freezing of water on a sidewalk in front of a driveway on the defendant’s property in the village of Port Chester. Judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of defendant’s proof unanimously affirmed, with costs. There was no proof of actionable negligence. *(Scales*v. *Village of Nyack,*265 App. Div. 880, affd. 290 N. Y. 689; *Stapleton*V. *Church of Pilgrims in City of Brooklyn,*242 App. Div. 710.) The case of *Maucieri*v. *Ware*(263 App. Div. 721) is not to the contrary. The proof in that case was of a radically different character from the proof here adduced. Present — Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

No. 01-116 October 2, 2001

NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE

CONCERNING DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a proposal to amend its

regulations concerning procedures used to collect outstanding debts.

The proposed rule change would make it easier for NRC to collect outstanding debts including

enabling the agency to refer any debt over 180 days delinquent to the Department of Treasury for

collection. The proposed rule change would amend Part 15 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations to ensure conformity with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the amended

procedures of the Federal Claims Collection Standards issued by the Department of Treasury and the

Department of Justice.

Under current practice, NRC sends three progressively stronger demands for payment to a

debtor at 30 day intervals. Under the proposed change, NRC would make two written demands and a

telephone call to the debtor before pursuing administrative remedies, which can include license

revocation.

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposed rule within 75 days after

publication of a Federal Register notice on this subject, expected shortly. Comments may be sent

to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Comments may also be submitted electronically via the

NRC's interactive rulemaking at: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov on the NRC web site.

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 141

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 141 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 141.67 Recall of documentation.

The importer may recall the entry and entry summary documentation at any time before the effective time of entry set forth in § 141.68. The entry shall be considered canceled, and documents shall be returned to the importer.

[T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46819, Aug. 9, 1979]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

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

No. 00-092 May 31, 2000

NRC REVISES ITS REGULATIONS

FOR FIRE BARRIER PENETRATION SEALS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is revising its regulations to modify the requirement for

fire barrier penetration seal material for nuclear power plants because the present requirement makes a

negligible contribution to safety.

As part of the NRC's defense-in-depth philosophy for protecting nuclear power plants through

the use of multiple safety features, the plants are divided into separate areas by fire-rated barriers

designed to contain a fire and prevent its spread to other areas. Various kinds of materials, some

silicone-based, are used to seal openings between fire barriers. The seals provide reasonable assurance

that a fire will be confined to the area in which it starts.

NRC has determined that if fire barrier penetration seals are properly designed, tested,

configured, installed, inspected and maintained, they are capable of preventing the spread of fire for

one, two or three hours, providing sufficient time for automatic systems or firefighters to control and

extinguish the fire. Therefore, the NRC's technical staff and Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards -- an independent body of technical experts that provides guidance to the Commission --

agreed that the non-combustibility requirement in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50,

Appendix R, be eliminated because it has a negligible contribution to safety.

The proposed rule was published in the August 18 edition of the Federal Register for public

comment. Eight letters were received and the NRC staff reflected some of the suggestions in the final

rule.

The new rule will become effective 90 days following publication in an upcoming edition of the

Federal Register. A copy of the rule will be posted at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC.rule.html on the NRC

homepage.

##
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-07 March 11, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $2,500 FINE AGAINST BEMIDJI, MN, FIRM

FOR VIOLATIONS OF NRC SAFETY REQURIEMENTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $2,500 fine against

DMS Imaging, Inc., of Bemidji, Minnesota, for deliberately violating NRC requirements

for monitoring employee radiation exposure and for providing inaccurate information

during a subsequent NRC investigation.

The company is licensed by the NRC to perform diagnostic medical procedures

using small quantities of radioactive pharmaceuticals.

The NRC requires that persons handling radioactive materials have appropriate

radiation personnel radiation monitoring devices to measure their radiation exposure.

An NRC inspection in August 1996 and subsequent investigations, completed in

November of last year, identified two violations of NRC requirements:

-- In August 1996 a new nuclear medicine technologist had prepared

radiopharmaceuticals, injected patients with the drugs, and performed diagnostic

medical scans without having been given the required radiation monitoring devices.

-- Two employees, including the technologist, subsequently provided inaccurate

information to an NRC investigator in December 1996, stating that the technologist did

not handle the radiopharmaceuticals.

The $2,500 fine was proposed for these two violations.

The investigation also determined that a supervisor deliberately allowed the

technologist to perform nuclear medicine activities without the required monitoring

devices and that he instructed the two employees to tell an NRC investigator that the

technologist had not handled radiopharmaceuticals prior to being given the monitoring

devices.

The NRC staff issued a Notice of Violation to the supervisor. In addition, he was

issued a Demand for Information, requiring him to respond to the agency as to why he

should not be removed from future NRC-licensed activities. His response to the Notice

of Violation and the Demand for Information will be used by the NRC to determine if
further enforcement action should be taken.

DMS Imaging has until March 26 to respond to the proposed fine, either paying it

or protesting it. If the fine is subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the company may

request a hearing.

The supervisor also has until March 26 to submit his response.

#####
§ 12.6 Affidavits required to accompany entry. ( a ) Cheeses produced in the member states of the European Communities shall not be permitted entry into the Customs territory of the United States (excluding Puerto Rico) if exported from any country or area other than the country of origin, or into Puerto Rico, unless accompanied by: ( 1 ) An affidavit, or its electronic equivalent, in the event of shipments into the Customs territory of the United States (excluding Puerto Rico), of the producer or exporter that the cheese has not received and will not receive restitution payments of the type referred to in Executive Order No. 11851, dated April 10, 1975 (40 FR 16645); or
( 2 ) An affidavit, or its electronic equivalent, in the event of shipments into Puerto Rico, of the importer that the cheese will be consumed in Puerto Rico or areas outside the Customs territory of the United States. Proof of actual consumption shall be furnished to the appropriate Customs officer within three years after the date such cheese is entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption.
( b ) These affidavits shall not be required to accompany importations of cheese produced in the member states of the European Communities if such cheese is shipped directly to the United States (excluding Puerto Rico) from the country of origin on a through bill of lading.
[T.D. 75-210, 40 FR 36767, Aug. 22, 1975, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61285, Oct. 13, 2015]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61864-61865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23534]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--American Society of Civil Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 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''), the American Society of 
Civil Engineers (``ASCE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place 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: American 
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. The nature and scope of ASCE's 
standards development activities are: to develop and publish standards 
covering a wide range of civil engineering areas, such as structural, 
geotechnical, transportation, construction, environmental, water and 
wastewater, coastal and waterway, fire

[[Page 61865]]

protection, utilities and architectural engineering.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-23534 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### §§90, 91. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §204(33), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1734

Section 90, act Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 830, §1, 31 Stat. 968, related to removal from office of employees of House for violation of sections 85 to 87 and 4552 of this title.

Section 91, acts Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 830, §1, 31 Stat. 968; Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, §121, 60 Stat. 822, related to investigations of violations of sections 85 to 87, 90, and 4552 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 5556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2372]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, Review of Conference Grants.
    Date: March 18, 2004.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Building 4401, East 
Campus, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, EC-3446, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: RoseAnne M. McGee, Associate Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Office of Program 
Operations, Division of Extramural Research and Training, National 
Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-0752.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 28, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-2372 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dario FLORES-CUAMATZI, aka Agustine Zavedra, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10446.

D.C. No. CR-01-00374-SRB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 24, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Dario Flores-Cuamatzi appeals his guilty plea conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Flores-Cuamatzi contends his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because his counsel was ineffective for failing *625to advise him of a possible defense under *United States v. Pacheco-Medina,*212 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.2000). We disagree with the government’s assertion that Flores-Cuamatzi waived his appeal rights in the plea agreement. *See United States v. Pruitt,*32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir.1994) (“We doubt that a plea agreement could waive a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s erroneously unprofessional inducement of the defendant to plead guilty or accept a particular plea bargain.”).

Nevertheless, we decline to review Flores-Cuamatzi’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. *See United States v. Hanoum,*33 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir.1994) (observing that an ineffective assistance claim is more properly raised by collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because such claims cannot be advanced without development of facts outside the record).

Flores-Cuamatzi has not set forth any other argument to support his claim that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-02-034 June 14, 2002

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $7,500 FINE AGAINST WISCONSIN RAPIDS FIRM FOR

LOSING A FIXED GAUGE WITH RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $7,500 fine against Stora Enso

North America Corporation, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, for losing control of a gauge

containing a sealed radiation source and inadvertently shipping it to China.

The company sold certain equipment installed at its Wisconsin paper mill to a paper mill

in China. In December of last year, two contract workers hired to dismantle the equipment

removed the density gauge, which was not included in the sale, and shipped it to China, along

with intended equipment. The gauge, which contained around 200 millicuries of Cesium-137,

was discovered missing during a quarterly inventory on January 15.

A company representative traveled to China on January 31and found the gauge still

attached to the equipment. The gauge was locked in a secure, shielded position. As such, it did

not represent a safety hazard. The gauge will remain in a secure location until arrangements for

its safe return to Stora Enso’s facility in Wisconsin Rapids are finalized.

The NRC conducted an inspection into the circumstances of the incident and held a

predecisional enforcement conference with Stora Enso to discuss apparent violations of NRC

requirements identified during the inspection, their significance, root causes and the company’s

corrective actions. 

The NRC staff identified three violations of federal regulations based on inspection

findings and information provided during the conference: (1) failure to control and maintain

constant surveillance of radioactive material; (2) failure to clearly label the gauge; and (3) failure

to ensure that the gauge was removed by persons licensed to do such work.
The company has 30 days from the receipt of the Notice of Violation to either pay the fine

or to protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the company

may request a hearing.

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

§ 10.2006 Certification not required. ( a ) *General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an importer will not be required to submit a copy of a certification under § 10.2004 for: ( 1 ) A non-commercial importation of a good; or
( 2 ) A commercial importation for which the value of the originating goods does not exceed U.S. $2,500.
( b ) *Exception.* If the Center director determines that an importation described in paragraph (a) of this section is part of a series of importations carried out or planned for the purpose of evading compliance with the certification requirements of § 10.2004, the Center director will notify the importer that for that importation the importer must submit to CBP a copy of the certification. The importer must submit such a copy within 30 days from the date of the notice. Failure to timely submit a copy of the certification will result in denial of the claim for preferential tariff treatment.
§ 148.8 Temporary importation by residents arriving for short visits. A person claiming the status of a nonresident upon arrival for a short visit in the United States before returning abroad may import articles free of duty under subheadings 9804.00.20, 9804.00.25, 9804.00.30, 9804.00.35, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), in accordance with the following procedure: ( a ) The person claiming the status shall agree to export all such articles upon his departure from the United States, except articles imported as gifts under subheading 9804.00.30, and articles consumed during his visit;
( b ) When required to do so, the person claiming the status shall list all articles of substantial value which he is importing on Customs Form 4455, or its electronic equivalent in duplicate, noting thereon the expected duration of his visit. He shall present the completed form to the inspecting officer who will initial both copies and return the duplicate to him;
( c ) Upon his departure from the United States at the completion of his visit, the person claiming the status of a nonresident shall present to a Customs officer the duplicate copy of Customs Form 4455, or its electronic equivalent initialed by the inspecting officer, and the articles listed thereon shall be subject to inspection; and
( d ) If he decides not to return abroad, the person claiming the status shall immediately notify the director of the port of entry. The port director will advise him of the amount of duties and taxes due by reason of his failure to return abroad.
[T.D. 73-27, 38 FR 2449, Jan. 26, 1973, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51264, Dec. 21, 1988; CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61291 Oct. 13, 2015]