alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 26—DEEP SEABED HARD MINERAL RESOURCES**

Sec.
1401.
Congressional findings and declaration of purpose.
1402.
International objectives.
1403.
Definitions.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—REGULATION OF EXPLORATION AND COMMERCIAL RECOVERY BY UNITED STATES CITIZENS

1411.
Prohibited activities by United States citizens.
1412.
Licenses for exploration and permits for commercial recovery.
1413.
License and permit applications, review, and certification.
1414.
License and permit fees.
1415.
License and permit terms, conditions, and restrictions; issuance and transfer of licenses and permits.
1416.
Denial of certification of applications and of issuance, transfer, suspension, and revocation of licenses and permits; suspension and modification of activities.
1417.
Duration of licenses and permits.
1418.
Diligence requirements.
1419.
Protection of the environment.
1420.
Conservation of natural resources.
1421.
Prevention of interference with other uses of the high seas.
1422.
Safety of life and property at sea.
1423.
Records, audits, and public disclosure.
1424.
Monitoring of activities of licensees and permittees.
1425.
Relinquishment, surrender, and transfer of licenses and permits.
1426.
Public notice and hearings.
1427.
Civil actions.
1428.
Reciprocating states.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—TRANSITION TO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

1441.
Declaration of Congressional intent.
1442.
Effect of international agreement.
1443.
Protection of interim investments.
1444.
Disclaimer of obligation to pay compensation.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—ENFORCEMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1461.
Prohibited acts.
1462.
Civil penalties.
1463.
Criminal offenses.
1464.
Enforcement.
1465.
Liability of vessels.
1466.
Civil forfeitures.
1467.
Jurisdiction of courts.
1468.
Regulations.
1469.
Omitted.
1470.
Authorization of appropriations.
1471.
Severability.
1472.
Deep Seabed Revenue Sharing Trust Fund; establishment.
1473.
Revenue and customs or tariff treatment of deep seabed mining unaffected.
June 10, 2015 

Mr. Leroy Schnebelen 

8 Carroll Road 

Catonsville, MD 21228 

 

Dear Mr. Schnebelen: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 14, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1582), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
NRC NEWS

 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-02-015 March 18, 2002

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

 

NRC TO MEET WITH SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT FARLEY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Southern Nuclear Operating

Company officials on Wednesday, March 27, to discuss the results of NRC's annual assessment of

safety performance at the Farley nuclear power plant.

The meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. (CST) in the Houston County Administration Building,

462 North Oats Street in Dothan, Alabama. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC

officials will be available before the meeting is adjourned to answer any questions.

A letter sent from the NRCís Regional Administrator to Southern Nuclear, which addresses

plant safety performance during the previous year and forms the basis of the meeting discussion, is

available from Region II Public Affairs or on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/far_2001q4.pdf

Current information for the two units at the Farley plant is available at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FAR1/far1_chart.html

and www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FAR2/far2_chart.html

###
CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Global Industries,
Ltd. ("Global") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on May, 14, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350 as adopted pursuant to
SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge based
upon a review of the Report, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) 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 Global as of the dates and for periods
presented as required by such Report.



/S/ WILLIAM J. DORE'
-----------------------
William J. Dore'
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003


This certification is provided pursuant to SS 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by
Global or the certifying officer for purposes of SS 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


A signed original of this written statement required by
SS 906 has been provided to Global Industries, Ltd. and will be
retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 13,243.

#### McIntosh *v.*City and County of Denver.

(19 P. [2d] 753)

Decided February 27, 1933.

Mr. II. A. Hicks, Mr. H. A. Hicks, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. James D. Parriott, Mr. Frederick P. Cranston, Mr. Harry A. Feder, for defendant in er'ror.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the court.

John A. McIntosh was charged in the Denver police court with vagrancy, was found guilty and was fined $50. He appealed to the county court, was tried without a jury, was found guilty, and was sentenced to imprisonment for 30 days.

On review, the recor'd is viewed in the light most favorable to the party successful in the trial court, and *302every inference fairly dedncible from tbe evidence is drawn in favor of the judgment. *Hiner v. Cassidy,*92 Colo. 78, 18 P. (2d) 309; *Roberts v. Dietz,*88 Colo. 594, 298 Pac. 1062. It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence. It is sufficient to say that, giving the City and County of Denver" the full benefit of the 'rule stated above, we find, after a painstaking examination of the record, that the evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain the charg*e.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with the direction to the county court to dismiss the proceeding.

Mr. Chibe Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Hilliabd and Mr. Justice Bouck concur.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington TX 76011-8064

 Website: www.nrc.gov

No. IV-02-002 January 25, 2002

CONTACT: Breck Henderson 

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: Opa4@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH NPPD TO DISCUSS OPERATOR 

REQUALIFICATION AT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a regulatory conference with officials

of Nebraska Public Power District, operator of the Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownville, Nebraska,

on Friday, February 1, to discuss tests given to operators at the plant. 

The meeting, which is open to public observation, will begin at 8 a.m. in NRC Region IV

offices in Arlington, Texas. NRC officials in Arlington will be available after the meeting to answer

questions. NPPD requested this conference to discuss NRC inspection results documented in an

inspection report issued on January 2. The purpose of the regulatory conference is to allow NPPD an

opportunity to present its perspective on the significance of an NRC inspection finding and any

information it believes is important to discuss with the NRC staff before the NRC makes any final

decisions.

The NRC staff and NPPD officials will discuss an NRC inspection finding with a preliminary

significance determination of ìwhite,î which indicates low to moderate safety significance. The

finding involves the NRC-required test given to operators every two years that operators must pass to

retain an NRC license. NRC inspectors found potential irregularities in the written test administered

by NPPD to its licensed operators at the Cooper Nuclear Station in 2000.

A ìwhiteî finding is defined as a regulatory problem with low to moderate safety significance. 

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a color coded

significance determination process which classifies regulatory findings as being in one of four color

categories: green, white, yellow, or red in increasing order of safety significance.

The inspection finding may also involve a violation of NRC regulations. That potential

violation is being considered for enforcement action. However, no decision on the potential violation,

any enforcement action, or the final significance determination of the inspection finding will be made

at the conference. Those decisions will be made later by NRC officials.

###
MARC DOUGLAS
                                2920 PADDOCK ROAD
                            FT. LAUDERDALE, FL  33331

                                December 18, 2002


Mr.  Matt  Dwyer
c/o  Brian  Lebrecht,  Esq.
2342  Avenida  Empresa
Suite  230
Rancho  Santa  Margarita,  CA  92688

     Re:     Stock  Purchase  Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") dated October
             28,  2002  by  and  between  Matthew  Dwyer  and  Marc  Douglas.

Dear  Mr.  Dwyer:

     Pursuant  to Section 2.4 of the Purchase Agreement, you agreed to cause TMI
Holdings,  Inc. (the "Company") to pay certain liabilities of the Company within
21  days  of  the  closing  of  the  transaction  contemplated  by  the Purchase
Agreement.  This  letter  will confirm that I agree that such 21-day period will
begin  on  the  date  hereof.

     This  letter  also serve to advise you that I have paid, out of my personal
funds,  the  amount of $1,000 to the internal account listed on Exhibit C of the
Purchase  Agreement.  You had previously agreed to cause the Company to pay such
amount  to  the  internal  accountant.  Payment  by  the Company for this amount
should  be  paid  to  me  personally  and  not  to  the  internal  accountant.

     If  you  have  any  questions,  please  call  me  at  (954)  214-5912

                              Very  truly  yours,


                              /s/  Marc  Douglas
                              Marc  Douglas
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
FRASERVIEW REMANUFACTURING INC., Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, CHRISTOPHER MAGNUS, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
, Defendants

- Appellants

______________________

2024

- 2049

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:22

- cv

- 00244

- TMR, Judge Timothy M. Reif.

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc.’s and the United States’s joint stipulation of voluntarydismissal of this appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with each side to bear its own costs,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The appeal is dismissed. Case: 24-2049 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 10/01/2024FRASERVIEW REMANUFACTURING INC

. v. US 2

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

October 1

, 202 4 Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 1, 2024 Case: 24-2049 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 10/01/2024
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60568 Conference Calendar

PERCY BOULDIN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CONSTAR PLASTIC, INC., also known as Constar Plastic, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:04-CV-305

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Percy Bouldin, Jr., moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the grant of summary judgment in favor of Constar Plastic, Inc. (Constar). We construe Bouldin’s motion as a challenge to the determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Bouldin’s motion addresses only his asserted indigent status and does not challenge the dismissal of his complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Failure to identify an error inNo. 05-60568 -2- the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Bouldin has not shown that the determination that his appeal would not be taken in good faith was incorrect. Bouldin’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Bouldin’s request for IFP status is denied, and his appeal is dismissed.
See id. ; 5TH C IR . R. 42.2. Constar’s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

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

No. III-02-047 August 2, 2002

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST V.A. MEDICAL CENTER IN ST. LOUIS

FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $6,000 fine against the Veterans

Affairs Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri, for improper disposal of low-level radioactive waste and

for failing to promptly notify the NRC, when the inappropriate disposal was identified. 

On two occasions in March, V.A. Medical Center staff placed radioactive waste in a normal

trash receptacle rather than a specifically designated container, resulting in unauthorized disposal of

radioactive material in non-radioactive trash. 

On March 18 and 29, the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety informed the NRC that

radioactive material, originating at the V.A. Medical Center, was found at a trash landfill. 

The V.A. Medical Center staff determined that one disposal contained approximately 2

millicuries of iodine-131, which is twice the quantity requiring immediate NRC notification, and the

other disposal contained approximately 150 microcuries of technetium-99m, which did not require

immediate notification.

On April 11, the V.A. Medical Center staff determined that the quantity of disposed iodine-131

exceeded the notification limit, but did not notify the NRC until April 30. 

While the amount of radioactive material was small, and calculations indicate that significant

exposure to the public from the improper disposal was unlikely, this violation represents a regulatory

concern because it involved the improper disposal of radioactive material, which could have resulted in

inadvertent exposure to employees and members of the public.

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

predecisional enforcement conference with representatives of the National Health Physics Program of

the Veterans Health Administration and the V.A. Medical Center in St. Louis to discuss the violations

and corrective actions. 
The medical center has until August 30 to either pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is

protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the company may request a hearing. 

The letter notifying the V. A. Medical Center of the proposed fine will be posted to the NRC

web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/.

# # #
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP
                                  Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-49233) pertaining to the Richmond County Savings Bank 401(k) Savings
Plan in RSI  Retirement  Trust (the "Plan") of our report dated August 11, 2000,
with  respect  to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Richmond  County
Financial Corp., included in the Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2000.

                                                  /s/Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
September 28, 2000
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dottie NIXON, a/k/a Dorothy Nixon, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4662.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Dottie Nixon appeals her sentence, imposed pursuant to a guilty plea, for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base within 100Ó feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 860 (1994). Finding no error, we affirm Nixon’s sentence.

Nixon contends her 360-month sentence is invalid under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Because Nixon’s sentence is not above the forty year statutory maximum of § 860, we find *Apprendi*is not implicated. *See United States v. Dinnall,*269 F.3d 418 (4th Cir.2001); *United States v. Promise,*255 F.3d 150 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed,*(U.S. Sept. 20, 2001) (No. 01-6398).

Nixon also contends the district court erred in calculating her sentencing guidelines range. We find no error in the district court’s determination of Nixon’s sentencing guidelines range. We therefore affirm Nixon’s sentence.

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.

*AFFIRMED.*
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

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

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

No. 01-040 April 9, 2001

NOTE TO EDITORS: NRC 2002 BUDGET REQUEST AVAILABLE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is making available today its budget request to Congress

for Fiscal Year 2002 (October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002). A limited number of press copies

(NUREG-1100, Volume 17) are available by calling the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) at 301-415-

8200. Pick-ups may be made at the agency’s One White Flint Building at 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland (across from the Metro Red Line’s White Flint station). The document will also

be available on the NRC’s web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/planning.html or may be purchased

from the Government Printing Office, telephone 202-512-1800. All media inquiries about the budget

should be made directly to OPA.

###
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23624]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold a 
meeting on October 28, 2004, at the North Tahoe Conference Center, 8318 
North Lake Blvd., Kings Beach, CA 96143. This Committee, established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is 
chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms 
of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and 
other matters raised by the Secretary.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 28, 2004, beginning at 9 a.m. 
and ending at 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the North Tahoe Conference 
Center, 8318 North Lake Blvd., Kings Beach, CA 96143.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maribeth Gustafson or Jeannie 
Stafford, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, 35 College 
Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, (530) 543-2642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The committee will meet jointly with the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Executives Committee. Items to be covered on the 
agenda include: (1) Tahoe Working Group Report; (2) Federal Agency 
Southern Nevada Land Management Act Round 6 Project Proposals; and, (3) 
Public Comment. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee 
meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to 
attend at the above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of 
the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or 
by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee 
before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above.

    Dated: September 28, 2004.
Maribeth Gustafson,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-23624 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
114 STAT. 1314 PUBLIC LAW 106–340—OCT. 19, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4615:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Sept. 6, considered and passed House.

Oct. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–340

106th Congress

An Act

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3030

Meredith Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska, as the ‘‘Reverend J.C. Wade Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

3030 Meredith Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska, and known as the

Ames Station, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Reverend

J.C. Wade Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Reverend

J.C. Wade Post Office’’.

Approved October 19, 2000.

Oct. 19, 2000

[H.R. 4615]