alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-27 June 20, 1996

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 708/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 708/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $2,500 FINE AGAINST THE DIAL CORPORATION

FOR IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF A NUCLEAR GAUGE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$2,500 fine against The Dial Corporation, London, Ohio, for the

improper disposal of a gauge containing radioactive materials.

The situation which resulted in this enforcement action came

to NRC's attention last November. At that time, Dial informed

the agency that, during an inventory, plant employees had found a

control panel of an industrial nuclear gauge, but could not

locate the gauge housing which contained a sealed source of

americium-241. NRC later performed a special inspection at the

Dial plant as the result of the notification.

Dial used the gauge to measure the thickness of fabric

softener on laundry dryer sheets produced at the plant. The

gauge was installed in 1977 and was used until approximately

1990. Plant workers last reported seeing it in 1992.

A review of documents by Dial at all of its facilities and

at the gauge manufacturer found no records indicating the proper

disposal of the gauge. Based on information from the licensee

and from its own inspection, NRC has concluded that the

radioactive source was transferred to an unlicensed recipient, in

violation of agency regulations.

"This violation is of significant regulatory concern because

Dial does not know the circumstances surrounding the loss, the

ultimate disposition of the material, or the possibility of any

individual exposures to radiation," said NRC Regional

Administrator Hubert J. Miller in notifying the company of the

fine.

The sealed source containing americium-241 would not

represent a significant health hazard as long as it remained in

the gauge housing with the shutter closed. If it were disposed

of with the normal trash it would not represent a significant

environmental hazard.

The Dial Corporation has until July 17 to 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.
####
§ 19.40 Establishment, relocation or alteration of container stations. ( a ) A container station, independent of the importing carrier, may be established at any port or portion of a port, or any other area under the jurisdiction of a port director upon the filing of an application therefore and its approval by the port director and the posting of a bond on Customs Form 301, containing the bond conditions set forth in § 113.63 of this chapter in such amount as the port director shall require.
( b ) Alterations to or relocation of a container station may be made with the permission of the director of the port in which the facility is located, or if not within a port's limits, nearest to where the facility is located. An application to alter or relocate a container station shall be accompanied by the fee required by paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) ( 1 ) Customs shall charge a fee to establish, relocate or alter a container station, and publish a general notice in the Federal Register and Customs Bulletin setting forth a fee schedule, to be revised periodically to reflect increased costs, to establish, relocate or alter the container station. The published revised fee schedule shall remain in effect until changed.
( 2 ) The fee, rounded off to the nearest dollar, shall be calculated in accordance with § 24.17(d) of this chapter. The fee shall be based upon the amount of time the average service requires of the Customs officers performing the service.
[T.D. 72-68, 37 FR 4186, Feb. 29, 1972, as amended by T.D. 82-135, 47 FR 32416, July 27, 1982; T.D. 83-56, 48 FR 9854, Mar. 9, 1983; T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41170, Oct. 19, 1984; T.D. 85-72, 50 FR 15885, Apr. 23, 1985; T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13675, Mar. 22, 1999]
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 650 

To enable the payment of certain officers and employees of the United 

States whose employment is authorized pursuant to a grant of deferred 

action, deferred enforced departure, or temporary protected status. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2021 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. WARREN, Mr. MARKEY, 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. SMITH, Mr. PADILLA, Mr. 

MERKLEY, Mr. BOOKER, Ms. ROSEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, 

Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. WARNER, Mr. 

SANDERS, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To enable the payment of certain officers and employees 

of the United States whose employment is authorized 

pursuant to a grant of deferred action, deferred enforced 

departure, or temporary protected status. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Dream Em5 ployment Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 650 IS

1 SEC. 2. CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO ARE BENE2 FICIARIES OF DEFERRED ACTION, DEFERRED 

3 ENFORCED DEPARTURE, OR TEMPORARY 

4 PROTECTED STATUS AUTHORIZED TO BE 

5 PAID. 

6 Section 704 of title VII of division E of the Consoli7 dated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260) is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘eligible; or’’ and inserting ‘‘eli10 gible;’’; 

11 (2) by striking ‘‘allegiance to the United 

12 States:’’ and inserting ‘‘allegiance to the United 

13 States; or (5) is a person who is employed by the 

14 House of Representatives or the Senate, and holds 

15 a current employment authorization document that 

16 was issued pursuant to a grant of deferred action, 

17 including under the Deferred Action for Childhood 

18 Arrivals Program of the Secretary of Homeland Se19 curity, established pursuant to the memorandum 

20 from the Secretary of Homeland Security entitled 

21 ‘Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to 

22 Individuals Who Came to the United States as Chil23 dren’, dated June 15, 2012, deferred enforced de24 parture, or temporary protected status under section 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 650 IS

1 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

2 U.S.C. 1254a):’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

July 05, 2024

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Southern District of Florida 

U.S. District Court 

400 N MIAMI AVE

MIAMI, FL 33128-1810 

Appeal Number: 23-11914-CC 

Case Style: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph Barleta 

District Court Docket No: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR

The enclosed copy of the Clerk's Order of Dismissal pursuant to appellant's motion to dismiss is 

issued as the mandate of this court. See 11th Cir. R. 42-1(a). 

Any pending motions are now rendered moot in light of the attached order. 

Clerk's Office Phone Numbers 

General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122 

Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200 

CM/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141 

Enclosure(s) 

DIS-3 Letter and Entry of Dismissal Vol

 

USCA11 Case: 23-11914 Document: 38 Date Filed: 07/05/2024 Page: 1 of 2 

JG Jul 5, 2024 MIAMI

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1985 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2024 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 23-11914-CC

______________ 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

RYAN K. STUMPHAUZER,

Court Appointed Receiver for Complete Business Solutions, Inc.

and other receivership entities,

 Interested Party - Appellee,

ALAN J. CANDELL, et. al.,

 Plaintiffs,

versus

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,

d.b.a. Par Funding, et al.,

 Defendants,

JOSEPH COLE BARLETA, 

a.k.a. Joe Cole,

 Defendant - Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

__________________________________________

ORDER: Motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal filed by Appellant Joseph Cole Barleta is 

GRANTED by clerk [10235184-2]. Pursuant to FRAP 42 and 11th Cir. R. 42-1(a), the above 

referenced appeal was duly entered dismissed on this date. 

Effective July 05, 2024. 

DAVID J. SMITH

Clerk of Court of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION 

USCA11 Case: 23-11914 Document: 38 Date Filed: 07/05/2024 Page: 2 of 2

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1985 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2024 Page 2 of 2
Copies furnished to:

Lisette M. Reid, U.S. Magistrate Judge and Edward Joe Young, pro se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-23107-Civ-COOKE/REID

EDWARD JOE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIAMI-DADE CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Lisette M. Reid, United States 

Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Administrative Order 2019-2 of 

this Court, for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and 

Recommendation on any dispositive matters. ECF No. 2. On October 13, 2020, Judge Reid

issued a Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge, recommending the Court 

dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 1) without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply with Court Orders. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff did not file any objections to Judge Reid’s

Report, and the time to do so has passed. 

I have considered Judge Reid’s Report, the Complaint, the record, and the relevant 

legal authorities. I find Judge Reid’s Report clear, cogent, and compelling. Accordingly, it 

is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Judge Reid’s Report of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 

13) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall CLOSE this 

case. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of November 

2020.

 

Case 1:20-cv-23107-MGC Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2020 Page 1 of 1
§ 148.44 Gifts. ( a ) *Exemption.* An arriving nonresident who intends to remain in the United States for not less than 72 hours is entitled to claim as free of duty and internal revenue tax under subheading 9804.00.30 and Chapter 98, U.S. Note 3, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), articles not over $100 in aggregate value (not including alcoholic beverages and cigarettes, but including not more than 100 cigars) which accompany him and are to be disposed of by him as bona fide gifts. See § 148.43(b) for limitations on cigars under this exemption.
( b ) *Frequency of allowance.* The exemption for gifts may be allowed only if the nonresident has not claimed the exemption within the immediately preceding 6 months.
[T.D. 73-27, 38 FR 2449, Jan. 26, 1973, as amended by T.D. 78-394, 43 FR 49789, Oct. 25, 1978; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51265, Dec. 21, 1988]
EXHIBIT 3

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### § 191.132 Procedure.

Other provisions of this part relating to direct identification manufacturing drawback shall apply to claims for drawback filed under this subpart insofar as applicable to and not inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart.
#### § 176.0 Scope.

This part deals with service of summons and notice of appeal in actions before the Court of International Trade, the transmission of records to the court, statements of agreed facts, and Customs procedures following a decision by the court.

[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13433, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 85-90, 50 FR 21430, May 24, 1985]
### subpart 4—general workforce investment provisions
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-23287-CIV-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ORDER 

MODIFYING/EXTENDING DEADLINES IN THE POST-REMAND BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS’ IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, WPP PLC, YOUNG & 

RUBICAM LLC, AND BCW LLC’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order 

modifying/extending deadlines in the post-remand briefing schedule on Defendants’ Imperial 

Brands plc, WPP plc, Young & Rubicam LLC, and BCW LLC’s Motions to Dismiss the Second 

Amended Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

that the Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED.

The Court's Order dated April 21, 2023 [D.E. 316] and the post-remand briefing schedule 

for Defendants Imperial Brands plc, WPP plc, Young & Rubicam LLC, and BCW LLC’s

Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint are hereby amended as follows:

1. Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendants’ post-remand briefs by Friday, July 7, 2023;

2. Defendants shall reply to Plaintiffs’ post-remand briefs by Friday, July 28, 2023; 

and

3. The Court shall conduct a telephonic conference on August 1, 2023, at 11:30 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

A.M. to schedule a new date for an all-day Zoom video hearing on the parties’ 

post-remand briefings. The parties shall call the conference number 1-888-684-

8852 at the appointed time, then enter access code 4791317 and security code 

0801.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, this 14th

day of June, 2023. 

____________________________________ 

HONORABLE ALICIA M. OTAZO-REYES

United States Magistrate Judge 

cc: United States District Judge Darrin P. Gayles

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2023 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1


CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*
 
    (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  /s/ Shaun A. Burke
  Shaun A. Burke
 Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
  March 30, 2010
  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NO. 07-03-0361-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JANUARY 22, 2004

______________________________

KENNETH GEAL AVERY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 252ND DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

NO. 87,126; HON. LARRY GIST, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Appellant Kenneth Geal Avery appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled

substance. His court-appointed counsel has moved to withdraw after filing a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and

representing he has searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The

motion and brief indicate that appellant was informed of his rights to review the appellate

record and file his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any pro se response or

brief he cared to file had to be filed by December 10, 2003. Upon the request for more

time, the deadline was extended to January 14, 2004. To date, appellant has filed no pro

se response or brief. Nor has he moved for another extension. 
2

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed

one potential area for appeal which concerned an objection regarding the prosecutor

testifying for the State’s witness. However, appellate counsel points out that trial counsel

did not request an instruction nor a mistrial; thus, the issue was not preserved for review.

Furthermore, appellate counsel discusses each phase of the trial, i.e. indictment, pretrial

motions, the stipulation of evidence and sentencing, and thereafter concluded that no

issues were presented for appeal.

So too have we conducted an independent review of the record to determine

whether there existed reversible error and found none. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring us to conduct an independent review). Appellant

was stopped while riding his bicycle for failing to obey the traffic laws. During the attempt

to stop appellant, the arresting officers observed appellant throw a metallic object to the

ground. After retrieving the object, which was a pill bottle, the officers found “crack”

cocaine inside. At trial, appellant stipulated to the chain-of-custody and that the bottle

contained over one gram of cocaine but less than four grams. There were no objections

to the jury charge, and we have found no egregious harm caused by anything in the

charge. Furthermore, the punishment assessed, seven years in prison, was within that

prescribed by law. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §12.42(a)(3) (Vernon 2003). 

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed. 

Brian Quinn

 Justice

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
by  reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                        5794 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 6967 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                 185247 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            198098 
<PP&E>                                        5381 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              245338 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        22935 
<BONDS>                                     119180 
<COMMON>                                       115 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                   89997 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                245338 
<SALES>                                     406353 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            406353 
<CGS>                                       339094 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               339094 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             46901 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1939 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              20432 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  7637 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          12795 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 12795 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.16 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.16 
        

</TABLE>
PUBLIC NOTICE

The Shelby County Health Department – Pollution Control Section (SCHD) is 

accepting public comments on an application concerning proposed amendments 

to the state implementation plan (SIP). The amendments are to incorporate the 

proposed Shelby County Eight-hour Ozone Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan (2015 SCRRAMP) into the SIP. 

Shelby County in Tennessee, Crittenden County in Arkansas, and the northern 

urbanized portion of Desoto County in Mississippi were designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard effective on 

July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088) with a classification of marginal. Local ozone data 

over 2012 to 2014 demonstrates the area now meets the standard. Therefore, the 

SCHD is requesting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate 

the area to attainment under this standard. In addition, the SCHD is submitting a 

Maintenance Plan to keep the area in attainment for 10 years. 

Copies of the proposed SIP amendment are available for public inspection at the 

SCHD office during normal business hours. In addition, an electronic copy of the 

proposal along with all technical support documents can be found at the following 

ftp site:

https://xfer.shelbycountytn.gov/

The username and password are both ‘public’.

A public hearing regarding this matter has been scheduled at the SCHD

Auditorium at 814 Jefferson Avenue Memphis, TN on December 15, 2015 at 5:30 

pm. Comments received will be distributed to members of the Tennessee Air 

Pollution Control Board for their review prior to their approval and subsequent 

submission to the EPA. Written comments should be addressed to: 

Mr. Robert Rogers, Technical Manager

Pollution Control Section

Shelby County Health Department

814 Jefferson Ave., 4th Floor

Memphis, TN 38105

(e-mail bob.rogers@shelbycountytn.gov)

Individuals with disabilities who wish to review this information should contact the 

SCHD to discuss any auxiliary aids, accommodations or services needed to 

facilitate such review. 

Questions concerning these documents may be addressed to Mr. Bob Rogers at

the above address or by calling (901) 222-9599.