alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 106

**Question 106:**
> 
(a) Are there no limits on airborne radioactivity concentrations in the controlled area, other than de facto limits for public dose to keep dose rates less than 2 mrem in an hour? 

(b) Would stack effluents creating temporary airborne radioactivity concentrations greater than DAC levels in the controlled areas be allowed, as long as the public dose criteria of 10 CFR 20.1301 are met? 

(c) It appears that these areas would not need to be "posted" or controlled, since there are not any 10 CFR Part 20 airborne radioactivity concentration limits for controlled areas. Is this correct?

**Answer:**
> 
(a) There are no limits on concentrations of airborne radioactive materials in controlled areas that are expressed in terms of concentrations. However, both the occupational dose limits (for individuals who receive an occupational dose in a controlled area) and the dose limits for an individual member of the public (when in a controlled area) indirectly limit the concentrations of radioactive material in controlled areas. Note that for members of the public the 100 mrem in a year limit applies. The 2 mrem in an hour limit does not apply in a controlled area. This limit applies only in an unrestricted area.

(b) Yes.

(c) There may be "airborne radioactivity areas" within controlled areas that need to be posted. See the answer to Question 27. 

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1301, 10 CFR 20.1201)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 31, 2017
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   9-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1996
[PERIOD-END]                               SEP-30-1996
[CASH]                                          233596
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                   645445
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                    1305747
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               3915381
[PP&E]                                        11923516
[DEPRECIATION]                                  580363
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                16018737
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                          3893067
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                       8500404
[OTHER-SE]                                    (612826)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                  16018737
[SALES]                                        5363809
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               5170536
[CGS]                                          4097201
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  6571126
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                              (1303431)
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                          (1080484)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                 (1080484)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                    (.29)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                    (.29)
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40793 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PATRICIO HOMERO SAENZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant,

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:03-CR-485-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Patricio Homero Saenz, Jr., has requested leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Saenz has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### § 72.1 Purpose of part.

This part provides administrative and cost-recovery procedures for the engineering review and administrative processing associated with FEMA's response to requests for Conditional Letters of Map Amendment (CLOMAs), Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMRs), Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-Fs), Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-Fs), Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs), and Physical Map Revisions (PMRs). Such requests are based on proposed or actual manmade alterations within the floodplain, such as the placement of fill; modification of a channel; construction or modification of a bridge, culvert, levee, or similar measure; or construction of single or multiple residential or commercial structures on single or multiple lots.

[62 FR 5736, Feb. 6, 1997]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

61 Forsyth Street SW

Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-19 May 1, 2000

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC Chairman Richard Meserve to Visit

Oconee Nuclear Station on May 11

Media Availability at 1:00 p.m.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard A. Meserve will visit the Oconee Nuclear

Station plant on Thursday, May 11 to tour the site and meet with plant officials. He will also meet

with interested media representatives after his plant visit to answer any questions.

The plant, located near Seneca, South Carolina, is operated by Duke Energy, and was the

second plant in the country to file an application to renew its operating license. Baltimore Gas and

Electric Company’s Calvert Cliffs plant was granted a license extension in late March and the NRC

met May 2 to discuss the Oconee application for license renewal. A decision on the Oconee license is

expected soon.

Chairman Meserve’s media availability will begin at 1:00 p.m. in the plant's Engineering

Complex, located just off Highway 183 about one mile east of the intersection with Highway 130.

Dr. Meserve was sworn in as Chairman of the NRC on October 29, 1999. A brief biography

can be found on the NRC's web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRC/WHATIS/meserve.vitae.html.

#
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Growth Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard
Freibaum, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


                           (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/: Bernard Freibaum
Bernard Freibaum
-----------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
May 8, 2003





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.


                                    39 of 39
§ 162.71 Definitions. When used in this subpart, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: ( a ) *Loss of duties under section 592.* “Loss of duties” means the duties of which the Government is or may be deprived by reason of the violation and includes both actual and potential loss of duties. ( 1 ) *Actual loss of duties.* “Actual loss of duties” means the duties of which the Government has been deprived by reason of the violation in respect of entries on which liquidation had become final.
( 2 ) *Potential loss of duties.* “Potential loss of duties” means the duties of which the Government tentatively was deprived by reason of the violation in respect of entries on which liquidation had not become final.
( b ) *Loss of revenue under section 593A.* When used in § 162.73a, the term “loss of revenue” means the amount of drawback (see § 191.2(i) of this chapter) that is claimed and to which the claimant is not entitled and includes both actual and potential loss of revenue. ( 1 ) *Actual loss of revenue.* When used in §§ 162.73a, 162.74, 162.77a and 162.79b, the term “actual loss of revenue” means the amount of drawback (see § 191.2(i) of this chapter) that is claimed and has been paid to the claimant and to which the claimant is not entitled.
( 2 ) *Potential loss of revenue.* When used in § 162.77a, the term “potential loss of revenue” means the amount of drawback (see § 191.2(i) of this chapter) that is claimed and has not been paid to the claimant and to which the claimant is not entitled.
( c ) *Repetitive violation.* When used in § 162.73a to describe a violation, “repetitive” has reference to a violation by a person that involves the same issue as a prior violation by that person.
( d ) *Noncommercial importation.* “Noncommercial importation” means merchandise imported by a traveler for an individual's personal or household use, or as a gift, but not imported for sale or other commercial purposes.
( e ) *Clerical error.* “Clerical error” means an error in the preparation, assembly, or submission of a document which results when a person intends to do one thing but does something else. It includes, for example, errors in transcribing numbers, errors in arithmetic, and the failure to assemble all the documents in a record.
( f ) *Mistake of fact.* “Mistake of fact” means an action based upon a belief by a person that the material facts are other than they really are; it can be that a fact exists but is unknown to the person, or that he believes something is a fact when in reality it is not. An action is not a mistake of fact if the erroneous belief is caused by the neglect of a legal duty.
[T.D. 79-160, 44 FR 31958, June 4, 1979, as amended by T.D. 84-18, 49 FR 1678, Jan. 13, 1984; 49 FR 3986, Feb. 1, 1984; T.D. 98-49, 63 FR 29131, May 28, 1998; T.D. 00-5, 65 FR 3808, Jan. 25, 2000]
#### § 118.5 Procedures for changes to a fee schedule.

Whenever a CES operator intends to increase, add to or otherwise change the service fees set forth in the fee schedule referred to in § 118.4(c) of this part, the operator shall provide 90 calendar days advance written notice to the port director of such proposed fee schedule change and shall include in the notice a justification for any increased or additional fee. Following receipt of this written notice, the port director will advise the public of the proposed fee schedule change and invite comments thereon under the public notice and comment procedures set forth in § 118.2 of this part. After a review of the proposed fee schedule change and any public comments thereon, and based on the principle of comparability set forth in § 118.11(c) of this part, the port director will decide whether to approve the change, will notify the CES operator in writing of his decision, and will notify the public of any approved fee schedule change by the same methods that were used to provide the public with notice of the proposed change. A CES operator shall remain bound by the existing fee schedule and shall not implement any fee schedule change prior to receipt of written approval of the change from the port director.
#### § 145.38 Diplomatic pouches.

Mail articles bearing the official seal of a foreign government with which the United States has diplomatic relations, accompanied by certificates bearing such seal to the effect that they contain only official communications or documents, shall be admitted free of duty without Customs examination.

[T.D. 73-135, 38 FR 13369, May 21, 1973, as amended by T.D. 78-102, 43 FR 14454, Apr. 6, 1978]
### §65c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 65c was editorially reclassified as section 6512 of this title.
### §437e. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(1), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354

Section, Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §311, formerly §312, as added Pub. L. 93–443, title II, §208(a), Oct. 15, 1974, 88 Stat. 1283; renumbered §311, Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §105, May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 481, related to reports to the President and Congress.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 8, 1980, see section 301(a) of Pub. L. 96–187, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 30101 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos JUAREZ, aka Nicandro Ibanez, et al., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10241.

D.C. No. CR-00-01253-PGR.

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 **

Carlos Juarez appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Juarez’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw as counsel of record. Juarez did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

Because our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that the plea agree*629ment, including the waiver of the right to appeal, was entered knowingly and voluntarily, *United States v. Aguilar-Muniz,*156 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir.1998) (waiver of right to appeal is valid if knowing and voluntary), we enforce the waiver, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.

**

 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40105

Summary Calendar

MIGUEL ANGEL MADRIGAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GARY CURRIE; OLIVER J. BELL; BRAD LIVINGSTON; BRYAN COLLIER,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CV-321

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Angel Madrigal, Texas prisoner # 580267, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint for damages and injunctive relief against several employees of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice wherein he alleged that they failed to 

protect him from an assault during which he was seriously injured by his 

cellmate. He also alleged that his property was lost or stolen. Madrigal 

consented to proceed before the magistrate judge, who held a hearing pursuant 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 19, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40105 Document: 00512775193 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2014
No. 14-40105

to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). The magistrate judge 

dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Our review is de novo. 

See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).

Although this court construes the briefs of pro se litigants liberally, an 

appellant’s brief must contain an argument on the issues that are raised so 

that this court may know what action of the district court is complained of. AlRa’id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 31 (5th Cir. 1995). Conclusory statements of the 

type found in Madrigal’s brief are insufficient, even for a pro se appellant. See 

Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). This dismissal counts 

as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Madrigal is warned that if he 

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil 

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless 

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g); 

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2

 Case: 14-40105 Document: 00512775193 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2014
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61580-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

DAWN JOYNT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JW LEE, INC., D/B/A SCARLETT’S

CABARET AND MIAMI GARDENS

SQUARE ONE, INC., D/B/A

TOOTSIES’ CABARET,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [DE 

24], and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow [DE 28]. The 

Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 28] have been filed, and the time for filing such 

objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings 

in the Report [DE 28] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. 

Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. 

Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). 

 Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 

Report [DE 28] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with 

the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusions. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 28] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 

Case 0:20-cv-61580-WPD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/24/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

2. Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [DE 24] is GRANTED; 

3. Plaintiff is awarded fees in the amount of $6,282.50. 

4. This remanded action shall remain CLOSED. Any pending motions are DENIED 

AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 23rd day of November, 2020.

Copies to:

Counsel of record

Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow

Case 0:20-cv-61580-WPD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/24/2020 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

DECURTIS LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DECURTIS CORPORATION and 

DECURTIS LLC, 

 Defendants. 

 

Civil Action No. 20-22945-Civ-Scola 

Civil Action No. 20-21547-Civ-Scola 

 

DECURTIS’S NOTICE OF FILING OF EXHIBITS 

 

 DeCurtis Corporation and DeCurtis LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby 

files the following exhibits in support of DeCurtis’s Opposition to Carnival’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, Statement of Material Facts and Additional Facts, and its Opposition to Carnival’s 

Daubert Motion to Strike, Limit, or Exclude Certain Expert Testimony: 

1. Declaration of Andrew C. Nordahl and its Exhibits 1-116 in support of DeCurtis’s 

Opposition to Carnival’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike, Limit, or Exclude 

Certain Expert Testimony. References herein to “Ex. __” refer to the corresponding Exhibit to this 

declaration. 

2. Declaration of Nicholas P Godici. References herein to “Godici Dec. Ex. __” refer 

to the corresponding exhibit to this declaration. 

3. Declaration of Markus Jakobsson. References herein to “Jakobsson Dec. Ex. __” 

refer to the corresponding exhibit to this declaration. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 302 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2022 Page 1 of 2
2 

4. Declaration of Matthew Lynde. References herein to “Lynde Dec. Ex. __” refer to 

the corresponding exhibit to this declaration. 

5. Declaration of Matthew Shoemake, PhD. References herein to “Shoemake Dec. Ex. 

__” refer to the corresponding exhibit to this declaration. 

Dated: May 9, 2022 DECURTIS LLC & DECURTIS 

CORPORATION 

 By: /s/ Jason P. Stearns 

One of their attorneys 

David C. Gustman (pro hac vice) 

Jeffery M. Cross (pro hac vice) 

Jill C. Anderson (pro hac vice) 

Andrew C. Nordahl (pro hac vice) 

Freeborn & Peters LLP 

311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Tel. (312) 360-6000 

Jason P. Stearns 

Florida Bar No. 059550 

Freeborn & Peters LLP 

201 N. Franklin Street 

Suite 3550 

Tampa, FL 33602 

Tel. (813) 488-2920 

E-mail: jstearns@freeborn.com 

Scott L. Watson (pro hac vice) 

Justin C. Griffin (pro hac vice) 

Patrick T. Schmidt (pro hac vice) 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 

865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Tel. (213) 443-3000 

Jeffrey Wu, Ph.D. (pro hac vice) 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 

2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 430 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 

Tel. (801) 515-7300 

Jared Kneitel (pro hac vice) 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 

1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Tel. (206) 905-7000 

Attorneys for Plaintiff DeCurtis LLC & 

DeCurtis Corporation 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 302 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2022 Page 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 11, 2006

NO. 03-04-00511-CR

Floyce Lee Jackson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES B. A. SMITH, PATTERSON AND PURYEAR

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE B. A. SMITH

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s

judgment: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment

of the trial court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified

below for observance.
#### § 162.12 Service of search warrant.

A search warrant shall be served in person by the officer to whom it is issued and addressed. In serving a search warrant, the officer shall leave a copy of the warrant with the person in charge or possession of the premises, or in the absence of any person, the copy shall be left in some conspicuous place on the premises searched.