alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 146.44 Zone-restricted status. ( a ) *General.* Merchandise taken into a zone for the sole purpose of exportation, destruction (except destruction of distilled spirits, wines, and fermented malt liquors), or storage will be given zone-restricted status on proper application. That status may be requested at any time the merchandise is located in a zone, but cannot be abandoned once granted. Merchandise in zone-restricted status may not be removed to Customs territory for domestic consumption except where the Board determines the return to be in the public interest.
( b ) *Application.* Application for zone-restricted status will be made on Customs Form 214.
( c ) *Merchandise considered exported* — ( 1 ) *For Customs purposes.* If the applicant desires a zone-restricted status in order that the merchandise may be considered exported for the purpose of any Customs law, all pertinent Customs requirements relating to an actual exportation shall be complied with as though the admission of the merchandise into zone constituted a lading on an exporting carrier at a port of final exit from the U.S. Any declaration or form required for actual exportation will be modified to show the merchandise has been deposited in a zone in lieu of actual exportation, and a copy of the approved Customs Form 214 may be accepted in lieu of any proof of shipment required in cases of actual exportation.
( 2 ) *For other purposes.* If the merchandise is to be considered exported for the purpose of any Federal law other than the Customs laws, the port director shall be satisfied that all pertinent laws, regulations, and rules administered by the Federal agency concerned have been complied with before the Customs Form 214 is approved.
( d ) *Merchandise entered for warehousing transferred to a zone.* Merchandise entered for warehousing and transferred to a zone, other than temporarily for manipulation and return to Customs territory as provided for in § 146.33, will have the status of zone-restricted merchandise when admitted into the zone. The application on Customs Form 214 will state that zone-restricted status is desired for the merchandise.
### §472. Office of Technology Assessment

#### (a) Creation

In accordance with the findings and declaration of purpose in section 471 of this title, there is hereby created the Office of Technology Assessment (hereinafter referred to as the "Office") which shall be within and responsible to the legislative branch of the Government.

#### (b) Composition

The Office shall consist of a Technology Assessment Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") which shall formulate and promulgate the policies of the Office, and a Director who shall carry out such policies and administer the operations of the Office.

#### (c) Functions and duties

The basic function of the Office shall be to provide early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the applications of technology and to develop other coordinate information which may assist the Congress. In carrying out such function, the Office shall:

(1) identify existing or probable impacts of technology or technological programs;

(2) where possible, ascertain cause-and-effect relationships;

(3) identify alternative technological methods of implementing specific programs;

(4) identify alternative programs for achieving requisite goals;

(5) make estimates and comparisons of the impacts of alternative methods and programs;

(6) present findings of completed analyses to the appropriate legislative authorities;

(7) identify areas where additional research or data collection is required to provide adequate support for the assessments and estimates described in paragraph (1) through (5) of this subsection; and

(8) undertake such additional associated activities as the appropriate authorities specified under subsection (d) may direct.

#### (d) Initiation of assessment activities

Assessment activities undertaken by the Office may be initiated upon the request of:

(1) the chairman of any standing, special, or select committee of either House of the Congress, or of any joint committee of the Congress, acting for himself or at the request of the ranking minority member or a majority of the committee members;

(2) the Board; or

(3) the Director, in consultation with the Board.

#### (e) Availability of information

Assessments made by the Office, including information, surveys, studies, reports, and findings related thereto, shall be made available to the initiating committee or other appropriate committees of the Congress. In addition, any such information, surveys, studies, reports, and findings produced by the Office may be made available to the public except where—

(1) to do so would violate security statutes; or

(2) the Board considers it necessary or advisable to withhold such information in accordance with one or more of the numbered paragraphs in section 552(b) of title 5.

(Pub. L. 92–484, §3, Oct. 13, 1972, 86 Stat. 797.)
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-45 June 26, 2000

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

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

HADDAM NECK, YANKEE ROWE DECOMMISSIONING WORK TO BE DISCUSSED

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of the Haddam Neck and

Yankee Rowe nuclear power plants on Tuesday, June 27, to discuss decommissioning activities at

those facilities.

The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I Office in

King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public. NRC staff will be available after the meeting to

answer questions.

Haddam Neck, located in Haddam, Conn., and operated by the Connecticut Yankee Atomic

Power Company, ceased operations in December 1996. Yankee Rowe, located in Rowe, Mass., and

operated by Yankee Atomic Power Company, was permanently shut down in October 1991. The two

companies are jointly working on the decommissioning of the two plants.

Among the decommissioning activities to be discussed at the meeting are organizational changes,

plans for the dry cask storage of spent nuclear fuel, large component disposal plans and the employee

concerns program.

#
§ 190.152 Merchandise released from CBP custody. No remission, refund, abatement, or drawback of duty will be allowed under this subpart because of the exportation or destruction of any merchandise after its release from Government custody, except in the following cases: ( a ) When articles are exported or destroyed on which drawback is expressly provided for by law;
( b ) When prohibited articles have been regularly entered in good faith and are subsequently exported or destroyed pursuant to statute and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury; or
( c ) When articles entered under bond are destroyed within the bonded period, as provided in 19 U.S.C. 1557(c), or destroyed within the bonded period by death, accidental fire, or other casualty, and satisfactory evidence of destruction is furnished to CBP (*see* § 190.71), in which case any accrued duties will be remitted or refunded and any condition in the bond that the articles must be exported will be deemed satisfied (*see* 19 U.S.C. 1558).
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.922 Retail packaging materials and containers.

(a) *Effect on tariff shift rule.* Packaging materials and containers in which a good is packaged for retail sale, if classified with the good for which preferential tariff treatment under the PTPA is claimed, will be disregarded in determining whether all non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergo the applicable change in tariff classification set out in General Note 32(n), HTSUS.

(b) *Effect on regional value content calculation.* If the good is subject to a regional value content requirement, the value of such packaging materials and containers will be taken into account as originating or non-originating materials, as the case may be, in calculating the regional value content of the good.

# Example 1.

Peruvian Producer A of good C imports 100 non-originating blister packages to be used as retail packaging for good C. As provided in § 10.916(a)(1) of this subpart, the value of the blister packages is their adjusted value, which in this case is $10. Good C has a regional value content requirement. The United States importer of good C decides to use the build-down method, RVC = ((AV − VNM)/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.915(b) of this subpart), in determining whether good C satisfies the regional value content requirement. In applying this method, the non-originating blister packages are taken into account as non-originating. As such, their $10 adjusted value is included in the VNM, value of non-originating materials, of good C.

# Example 2.

Same facts as in Example 1, except that the blister packages are originating. In this case, the adjusted value of the originating blister packages would *not* be included as part of the VNM of good C under the build-down method. However, if the U.S. importer had used the build-up method, RVC = (VOM/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.915(c) of this subpart), the adjusted value of the blister packaging would be included as part of the VOM, value of originating materials.
Exhibit 31.2

OMNI ENERGY SERVICES CORP.

A LOUISIANA CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, G. Darcy Klug, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of OMNI Energy Services Corp., a Louisiana corporation (the registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: March 31, 2006



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/    G. DARCY KLUG    
|G. Darcy Klug           
|Executive Vice President
NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-058 September 24, 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 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES, IMPROVEMENTS

REGARDING LIMERICK AND PEACH BOTTOM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Exelon Generation

Company on Monday, October 1, to discuss recent emergency preparedness performance issues and

program improvements at the Limerick and Peach Bottom nuclear power plants. The Limerick plant is

located in Limerick, Pa., and Peach Bottom in Delta, Pa. Exelon operates both facilities.

 The management meeting, which was requested by Exelon, is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. in

the Public Meeting Room at the NRCís Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the

public for observation, with NRC staff available afterwards to answer questions from interested

members of the public.

 Last month, the NRC cited Exelon for several occasions when the public address and evacuation

alarm system at Peach Bottom was not properly maintained or did not function in accordance with the

plantís emergency plan and implementing procedures. The NRC determined the issue was of low to

moderate safety significance because a failed or degraded emergency on-site communications system

would have prevented the plant from properly informing and alerting on-site personnel of protective

actions and could have unnecessarily delayed a site evacuation.

###
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23335-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

AST & SCIENCE LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

DELCLAUX PARTNERS SA,

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s 

Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 45] regarding Plaintiff AST & Science 

LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Amended Counterclaim (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 21]. On 

August 11, 2020, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant. [ECF No. 1]. On December 29, 

2020, Defendant Delclaux Partners SA filed its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses and 

Counterclaims. [ECF No. 17]. On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion attacking the 

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction as to Defendant’s Counterclaims. [ECF No. 21]. On April 30, 

2021, the Court referred this case to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for 

a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive 

matters. [ECF No. 38]. On June 28, 2021, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report recommending 

that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff timely filed objections, [ECF No. 46], but 

Defendant did not respond.

Case 1:20-cv-23335-DPG Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which 

objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific 

objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint 

Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 

208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge OtazoReyes’s analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 

45], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by 

reference.

2. Plaintiff AST & Science LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Amended 

Counterclaim, [ECF No. 21], is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of August, 2021.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23335-DPG Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2021 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

Securities
and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Eastern American Natural Gas Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a
separate disclosure document.

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Trustee, Trustee for Eastern American Natural Gas TrustBy:

/s/ MIKE ULRICH Vice PresidentThe Bank of New York Mellon Trust
Company, N.A.


Date:
November 5, 2010

---



QuickLinks
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-74 October 23, 2000

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

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

NOTE TO EDITORS: NRC TO MEET WITH CON ED ON IP2 IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of Consolidated Edison

Company of New York on Wednesday afternoon (10/25) to discuss the company’s progress in

improving engineering support and system readiness at its Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in

Buchanan, N.Y.

The meeting will be held at 1:00 in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC’s Region I Office,

475 Allendale Road, in King of Prussia, Pa. The meeting is open to the public for observation.

The meeting is one in a series of periodic meetings at which the NRC will monitor

implementation of Con Ed’s improvement plans for the station.

###
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23700]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4879]


Bureau of Nonproliferation: Determination Under the Foreign 
Assistance Act and Several Foreign Operations and Related Programs 
Appropriations Acts

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Pursuant to Section 654(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Deputy Secretary of State 
has made a determination pursuant to section 620H of the Foreign 
Assistance Act, and Section 543 of the Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs Appropriations, Division D, of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199) and 
similar provisions in previous year Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Acts, and Executive 
Order 12163, as amended. The Deputy Secretary of State has concluded 
that publication of the determination would be harmful to the national 
security of the United States.

    Dated: October 14, 2004.
Susan F. Burk,
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 04-23700 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. D.B., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8334.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2016-O HIO -8334 T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT , v. D.B., A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. D.B., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8334.] Court of appeals’ judgment reversed, and cause remanded to juvenile court for application of State v. Aalim. (No. 2015-0192—Submitted December 13, 2016—Decided December 27, 2016.) C ERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 25859, 2014-Ohio-5368.

_______________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of app eals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Montgomery County Comm on Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, for application of State v. Aalim , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-8278, ___ N.E.3d

___. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L ANZINGER , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur. O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , and F RENCH , JJ., concur in judgment only.

_________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew T. French, Assistant Pr osecuting Attorney, for appellant. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Sheryl Trzaska, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

_________________