alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 146.205 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 146.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or an extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, *professional and technical services* shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( c ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( d ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
FALKOR Cinema X8 Octocopter Manual

Falkor 2 is a rigid coaxial octocopter based on the Freefly Cinestar 8 frame designed to fly full size Cinema cameras on the Freefly Systems Movi M10 stabilizer reliably at altitude. It is a dual operator system with a full HD downlink for the camera operator, and a on screen display data-link for the pilot based on the DJI A2 professional flight controller. Octocopters have additional payload capacity and built in redundancy for continued flight with loss of up to 2 motors, propellers, ESCs, dual battery redundancy no exposed circuitry and weather resistance electronics for increased safety.

SPECS:

Dimensions: 58 inches in X configuration Power: 8 electric motors Propellers: 18 inch Max Speed: 40mph Max takeoff weight: 40lbs Falkor Serial #: FK002 FAA N#: Not assigned Year: 2015 Max Payload : 22lbs Takeoff Configuration: Vertical Takeoff and Landing

Industry components used: Frame: Freefly Systems Cinestar 8 frame (see Appendix E for build manual). Flight controller: DJI A2 (see appendix C for operating instructions) Flight Radio: Futaba 14SGH (see appendix H for operating instructions) On Screen display and data downlink: DJI IOSD Mark 2 (See appendix F for operating instructions) Camera Gimbal: Freefly System Movi M10 (see appendix J for operating instructions) Camera control radio: Spektrum DX7 (see appendix G for operating instructions) HD Downlink: Connex by Amimon (see appendix K for operating instructions)

FALKOR Aerials, 1074 Sunshine Canyon Drive, Boulder, Colorado. falkoraerials.com 303.249.8423
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-01-019 May 15, 2001

CONTACT: Breck Henderson 

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC FINES CALLAWAY $55,000 FOR RETALIATION 

AGAINST SECURITY PERSONNEL

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $55,000 fine against Union

Electric Company, the operator of Callaway Nuclear Plant near Fulton, Missouri, for retaliation against

security personnel who identified a violation of NRC requirements.

The basic facts are that a security guard, employed in a temporary status by The Wackenhut

Corporation, brought to the attention of managers the fact that a guard trainee did not have a high

school diploma as required for the job. Wackenhut terminated the trainee, as required, but then also

terminated the security guard who identified the concern and reprimanded a security training instructor

who brought the concern forward, for reasons that the NRC found to be discriminatory. The NRC

found that this action violated regulations prohibiting retaliation against workers who bring safety

issues to management.

Although the retaliatory action was taken by the contractor, The Wackenhut Corporation,

Union Electric management participated in the action and is held responsible as the operator of the

plant. Since the violation was identified, Union Electric has taken measures to reassure workers that

they are expected and encouraged to bring forward safety concerns without fear of retaliation in

accordance with NRC expectations that nuclear plant operators maintain a safety conscious work

environment.

The NRC is also issuing a Notice of Violation against The Wackenhut Corporation as a result

of its actions in this case.

Ellis W. Merschoff, NRC Regional Administrator, said in a letter to Garry L. Randolph, Senior

Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer for Union Electric: ìTo emphasize the significance of this

violation and the importance of maintaining a safety conscious work environment at the Callaway

Nuclear Plant, I have been authorized . . . to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed

Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the base amount of $55,000 for this Severity Level III

violation.î

The NRC classifies violations on a four-level scale, with Level I being the most serious. Union

Electric has 30 days to respond in writing to the NRCís Notice of Violation. During this period, the

company may pay the fine or file a protest.

###
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900

Atlanta, Georgia 30323

No. II-96-90 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, November 8,

1996)

Telephone: (404) 331-5503 or 331-7878

NRC TO SEND SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM TO BRISTOL, VIRGINIA

TO REVIEW INDUSTRIAL WORKER'S OVEREXPOSURE TO

RADIATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff announced Friday

that it will send a special Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) next

week to Bristol, Virginia to review circumstances associated with

an apparent overexposure to the hand of a worker using a

radioactive device to measure the density of soil at a number of

temporary job sites this year.

Professional Service Industries, Inc., of Bristol notified

the NRC on November 6 that a technician had reported a concern

that reddening and blisters on the hand may have resulted from

radiation exposure. The technician had operated a gauging device

containing up to 10 millicuries of radioactive cesium-137 in a

source at the end of a rod and up to 50 millicuries of americium241 within the gauge housing. The cesium source is housed within

the gauge and pushed out and into the ground during use.

NRC officials said the technician reported routinely

touching the cesium source during operation due to difficulties

in pushing it out of its housing during a six-month period.

Based upon November 8 interviews with the technician and a

reenactment of events, the company determined that the technician

probably received an overexposure to the hand of more than 50

rems, the NRC's annual limit for such exposure. The NRC concurs

that the technician probably exceeded the regulatory limit by a

significant amount.

The NRC's regional office in Atlanta has issued a

Confirmatory Action Letter to the company to document proposed

corrective actions. The AIT will arrive at the site next week to

review circumstances associated with the event, including a

determination of the dose to the technician's hand, the cause of

the gauge malfunction, and training of licensee personnel.

####
### SUBCHAPTER V—ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23364]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-952-05-1420-BJ]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be 
officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, thirty (30) calendar days from the 
date of this publication.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Indian Meridian, Oklahoma

    The Plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 
10 North, Range 26 East, of the Arkansas River and Historic Riverbed, 
accepted September 28, 2004, for Group 61 Oklahoma.
    If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats 
is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
    A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these 
surveys must file a written protest with the New Mexico State Director, 
Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice 
of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be 
filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest 
is filed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: These plats will be available for 
inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 
P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115. Copies may be obtained 
from this office upon payment of $1.10 per sheet.

    Dated: October 7, 2004.
Jay Innes,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor for New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 04-23364 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al., 

Defendants.

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

RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF

DEFENDANT IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC

Pursuant to Rule 7.1(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Imperial Brands plc 

(“Imperial”), hereby statesthat Imperial has no parent corporation, and no other publicly held corporation 

has notified Imperial that it owns ten percent or more of Imperial’s stock.

Dated: September 1, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Andrew Rhys Davies

ALLEN & OVERY LLP

Andrew Rhys Davies (admitted pro hac vice)

andrewrhys.davies@allenovery.com

Justin L. Ormand (admitted pro hac vice)

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10020

Telephone: 212-610-6300

NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL

Mark F. Raymond 

Mark.Raymond@nelsonmullins.com

Jonathan Etra

jonathan.etra@nelsonmullins.com

2 South Biscayne Blvd. 21st Floor

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: 305-373-9400

Attorneys for Defendant Imperial Brands plc

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### § 112.43 Form of identification card.

The identification card shall be issued on Customs Form 3873 and shall not be valid unless signed by the employee and a Customs officer and the U.S. Customs seal is impressed thereon. The holder shall encase the card in protective transparent plastic so that both sides are clearly visible.
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. 99-08 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, January 13, 1999)

NRC PROPOSES TO AMEND REGULATIONS TO ADD

HI-STAR FUEL STORAGE CASK DESIGN TO APPROVED LIST

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to add an

additional fuel storage cask design to those that utilities can use–under a general license and

without site-specific approval–to store spent fuel at their nuclear power plants.

The new design is the Holtec International Hi-Star 100 cask system (Hi-Star),

manufactured by Holtec International Inc. of Marlton, NJ. It can contain up to 24 pressurized

water reactor fuel assemblies or 68 boiling water reactor fuel assemblies.

Under the terms of an NRC general license, any nuclear power reactor licensee can use

a pre-approved cask if the company notifies the NRC in advance, meets the conditions of the

cask’s NRC certificate of compliance and complies with NRC’s regulations, including a

requirement to ensure that the reactor site characteristics and potential site-boundary radiation

doses are within the scope of the cask’s safety analysis report and the reactor license.

Seven cask designs have previously been approved for use under a general license.

The Hi-Star certificate would contain conditions for use that are similar to those for other NRCapproved casks. However, the certificate for each cask design may differ in some specifics,

such as operating procedures, training exercises and spent fuel specifications.

The NRC staff has issued a preliminary safety evaluation report which finds that, if the

conditions specified in the certificate of compliance are met, adequate protection of public

health and safety will be maintained. The staff’s draft environmental assessment determined

that use of the Hi-Star cask design on reactor sites would have no significant incremental

impacts on the environment.

The certificate would expire in 20 years unless it is renewed.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed

amendments to the regulations by March 29. The comments should be addressed to the

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Comments may also be submitted via the NRC’s

interactive rulemaking web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

###
Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2021 Page 1 of 2
Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2021 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2615

RICHARD KENT,

Petitioner,

versus

NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORPORATION;

BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(99-206)

Submitted: May 10, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Klein, MONTAGNA, KLEIN & CAMDEN, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia,

for Petitioner. Richard E. Garriott, Jr., CLARKE, DOLPH, RAPAPORT,

HARDY & HULL, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Norris Kent petitions this court for review of a decision and order of the Benefits Review Board ("Board") affirming the

administrative law judge's denial of longshore benefits on the

ground that Kent's injury did not occur on a covered situs, as

required by 33 U.S.C.A. § 903(a) (West 1986 & Supp. 1999). We have

reviewed the briefs and record on appeal, and our review discloses

that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence, is

rational, and is in accordance with the law. See Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Hord, 193 F.3d 797, 800 (4th Cir. 1999)

(stating standard of review). Accordingly, because we find that

the site of the injury is not a covered situs, see Sidwell v.

Express Container Servs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1134, 1138-40 (4th Cir.

1995), we deny Kent's petition for review on the reasoning of the

Board. See Kent v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., No. 99-

206 (B.R.B. Oct. 29, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEAN VAGNOZZI LEAVE TO FILE A 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE INSURANCE 

COVERAGE CONCERNING CLAIMS AGAINST ECKERT SEAMANS AND PAUCIULO

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Dean Vagnozzi’s Motion for Leave 

to file to a Declaratory Judgment Action Against Insurers of Eckert Seamans and John W. Pauciulo, 

Esquire (the “Motion”). The Court has reviewed the Motion, the responses thereto by interested 

parties, and the record in this matter. 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. The Motion is hereby granted. 

2. Dean Vagnozzi is hereby granted leave to file the proposed Complaint for Declaratory 

Judgment attached to his Motion as Exhibit “A.” 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this _____ day of August, 2023.

________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1654-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2023 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated April 7, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2063 contained in Amendment No.
1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-252129) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 7, 2021
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. 96-110 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, August 1, 1996)

NRC REMOVES DETROIT PROPERTY FROM

LIST OF CONTAMINATED SITES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has removed the Frome

Investment Company property at 1950 West Fort Street, Detroit,

Michigan, from a special list of sites contaminated with

radioactive material.

Brooks & Perkins Corporation used radioactive thorium at the

site from 1957 to 1971, under an Atomic Energy Commission

license. Frome Investment Company purchased the property from

Brooks & Perkins.

NRC conducted a radiation survey of the site in February

1994, after an NRC contractor--performing a paperwork review of a

number of terminated license files--identified the site as one

that potentially could have residual contamination. The survey

detected radiation levels exceeding NRC's criteria for

unrestricted use.

Follow-up inspections found that some of the suspected

contamination was due to natural radiation in brick and cinder

block walls. But other elevated readings were eventually traced

to a fragment of magnesium thorium metal--slightly under the soil

surface--in the shape of a box about 6 inches by 6 inches by 6

inches. Frome Investment arranged to have this fragment

transferred to the low-level radioactive waste disposal facility

in Barnwell, South Carolina.

Based on these actions, NRC notified the company that

cleanup is complete and the site is suitable for unrestricted

use. The agency has also removed the site from its Site

Decommissioning Management Plan, which identified about 50 sites

throughout the United States that are contaminated with

radioactive materials and warrant special attention.

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

§ 10.451 Originating goods. A good imported into the customs territory of the United States will be considered an originating good under the US-CFTA only if: ( a ) The good is wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of Chile or of the United States, or both; or
( b ) The good is produced entirely in the territory of Chile or of the United States, or both, satisfies all other applicable requirements of this subpart, and ( 1 ) Each of the non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification specified in General Note 26(n), HTSUS, and
( 2 ) The good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional value content or other requirements specified in General Note 26(n), HTSUS; or
( c ) The good is produced entirely in the territory of Chile or the United States, or both, exclusively from originating materials.
#### Florence M. Silverstein, Appellant, v. David Silverstein, Respondent.

The plaintiff may enter judgment for the unpaid balance and proceed under the judgment or move to punish for contempt. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.
§ 296.10 Filing a claim under the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act. ( a ) Any Injured Person may bring a claim under the Act by filing a Notice of Loss. A claim submitted on any form other than a Notice of Loss will not be accepted. The claimant must provide a brief description of each injury on the Notice of Loss.
( b ) A single Notice of Loss may be submitted on behalf of a household containing Injured Persons provided that all Injured Persons on whose behalf the claim is presented are identified.
( c ) The Notice of Loss must be signed by each claimant, if the claimant is an individual, or by a duly authorized legal representative of each claimant, if the claimant is an entity or an individual who lacks the legal capacity to sign the Notice of Loss. If one is signing a Notice of Loss as the legal representative of a claimant, the signer must disclose their relationship to the claimant. FEMA may require a legal representative to submit evidence of their authority to act.
( d ) The Claims Office will provide Notice of Loss forms through the mail, electronically, in person at the Claims Office or by telephone request. The Notice of Loss form can also be downloaded from the internet at *https://www.fema.gov/hermits-peak .*
( e ) A Notice of Loss may be filed with the Claims Office by mail, electronically, or in person. Details regarding the filing process can be found at *https://www.fema.gov/hermits-peak .*
( f ) A Notice of Loss that is completed and properly signed is deemed to be filed on the date it is received and acknowledged by the Claims Office.