alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1207.110 Notice.

The agency shall make available to employees, applicants, participants, and other interested parties such information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the agency, and make such information available to them in such manner as the head of the agency finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504 and this part.
#### § 1830.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Access* means availability of a record to a subject individual.

*Disclosure* means the availability or release of a record.

*Maintain* means to maintain, collect, use, or disseminate when used in connection with the term “record;” and to have control over or responsibility for a system of records when used in connection with the term “system of records.”

*Notification* means communication to an individual whether or not they are a subject individual.

*Record* means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by OSC, including, but not limited to, the individual's education, financial transactions, medical history, criminal, or employment history, that contains a name or an identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. When used in this part, record means only a record that is in a system of records.

*Release* means making available all or part of the information or records contained in an OSC system of records.

*Responsible OSC official* means the officer listed in a notice of a system of records as the system manager or another individual listed in the notice of a system of records to whom requests may be made, or the designee of either such officer or individual.

*Subject individual* means that individual to whom a record pertains.

*System of records* means any group of records under the control of OSC from which a record is retrieved by personal identifier such as the name of the individual, number, symbol or other unique retriever assigned to the individual. Single records or groups of records which are not retrieved by a personal identifier are not part of a system of records. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(5).
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. 04-019 February 9, 2004

NRC INVITES PUBLIC TO SUBMIT NOMINATIONS

FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking qualified candidates for appointment to its

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).

The ACRS was established by Congress to provide the NRC with independent expert advice on

matters related to the safety of existing and proposed nuclear facilities and on the adequacy of proposed

reactor safety standards. The Committee’s work currently emphasizes safety issues associated with the

operation of 103 commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S.; the pursuit of a risk-informed and

performance-based regulatory approach; review of license renewal applications; risk-informed

revisions to reactor regulations; power uprates; transient and accident analysis codes; materials

degradation issues; use of mixed oxide and high burn-up fuels; and technical issues related to

advanced reactor designs. 

The ACRS membership is drawn from a variety of engineering and scientific disciplines needed

to conduct broadly based reviews for these facilities, as well as proposed standards and criteria and

related research activities. At this time, the Commission is specifically seeking individuals who have

at least 15 years of experience in the areas of nuclear engineering, probabilistic risk assessment, and/or

plant operations. Candidates with pertinent graduate-level education will be given additional

consideration. Individuals should have a demonstrated record of accomplishments in the area of

nuclear reactor safety. Candidates are selected to provide a balanced technical base consistent with the

requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Because conflict-of-interest regulations restrict the participation of members actively involved

in the regulated aspects of the nuclear industry, the degree and nature of any such involvement will be

weighed. Each qualified candidate’s financial interests must be reconciled with applicable federal and

NRC rules and regulations prior to final appointment. This might require divestiture of securities

issued by nuclear industry entities or discontinuance of industry-funded research contracts or grants.

A résumé describing the educational and professional background of the applicant, including

any special accomplishments, professional references, current address, and telephone number should be

provided. Candidates must be U.S. citizens. All candidates will receive careful attention. An

indication of the candidate’s ability and willingness to devote the time required (about 80 - 100 days

per year) should also be provided. Applications will be accepted until March 15.
-2-

Résumés should be sent to the attention of Ms. Sherry Meador, Administrative Assistant,

Operations and Support Branch, Mail Stop T2E-26, ACRS/ACNW, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001, or e-mail sam@nrc.gov .

###
§ 146.11 Transportation of merchandise to a zone. ( a ) *From outside Customs territory.* Merchandise may be admitted directly to a zone from any place outside Customs territory.
( b ) *Through Customs territory, foreign merchandise.* Foreign merchandise destined to a zone and transported in-bond through Customs territory will be subject to the laws and regulations applicable to other merchandise transported in-bond between two places in Customs territory.
( c ) *From Customs territory, domestic merchandise.* Domestic merchandise may be admitted to a zone from Customs territory by any means of transportation which will not interfere with the orderly conduct of business in the zone.
( d ) *From a bonded warehouse.* Merchandise may be withdrawn from a bonded warehouse under the procedures in § 144.37(g) of this chapter and transferred to a zone for admission in zone-restricted status.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7603

STEPHEN T. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT ELLINGTON; J. B. BROWN, Sergeant; RANDY RAY, Captain; CATHY COWANS, Sergeant; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MAVERICK; JIM JONES, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JUWAN; PAT ORSBAN, Nurse; DEFENDANT CLARANCE; SERGEANT RAY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-192-1-MU) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 12, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Stephen T. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Thompson Boone, BUNCOMBE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Asheville, North Carolina; Elizabeth Ellen McConnell, ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Stephen T. Jones appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to (1) reinstate certain of his dismissed claims and (2) strike one of the Defendants’ notice of his intent to file a motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6702

DANIEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Daniel Rodriguez,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN JANSON FCI EDGEFIELD,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. 

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01893-HMH)

Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny Angel Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6702 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Danny Angel Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Rodriguez’s

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Rodriguez sought to challenge his conviction by way 

of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge 

his conviction in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 only if a § 2255 

motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See also

Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023) (noting that a federal prisoner may only seek 

relief by way of § 2241 when “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable 

to seek relief in the sentencing court, as well as [] challenges to detention other than 

collateral attacks on a sentence”). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rodriguez v. Warden Janson FCI 

Edgefield, No. 1:23-cv-01893-HMH (D.S.C. filed June 28 & entered June 29, 2023). We 

grant Rodriguez’s motion for an extension of time. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6702 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
   1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

            In connection with the accompanying Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
of Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter ended May 31, 2006, the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

            (1)   such Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May
                  31, 2006 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 such Quarterly report on Form
                  10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31, 2006 fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Magna-Lab, Inc.


      July 14, 2006                               /s/ Kenneth C. Riscica
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name: Kenneth C. Riscica
                                                  Title: Treasurer & Secretary
                                                  (principal financial officer)
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington TX 76011-4005

No. IV-03-012 March 31, 2003 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

 

NRC PROPOSES $9,000 FINE FOR PACIFIC RADIOPHARMACY, LTD.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a fine of $9,000 against Pacific

Radiopharmacy, Ltd. of Honolulu, Hawaii, for violations of NRC administrative and radioactive

material handling requirements.

In a letter to the company, Ellis W. Merschoff, Administrator of the NRC’s Region IV office in

Arlington, Texas, said that as a result of an NRC inspection concluded in September 2002, the agency

determined that the company willfully violated certain NRC requirements associated with the handling

of radioactive materials. Separately, the company’s failure to follow NRC requirements resulted in a

radiopharmacist receiving a significant overexposure. 

In addition to failing to properly follow NRC regulations, the NRC has determined that the

company’s employees “displayed a careless disregard for the requirements to wear personal monitoring

devices in areas where radioactive materials are used and stored,” Merschoff said. Two senior

company officials engaged in deliberate misconduct by knowingly failing to monitor their hands and

clothing for radioactive contamination when leaving restricted areas, Merschoff said.

The company had taken corrective actions by suspending the radioapharmacist from further

work with radioactive materials during 2002, changing procedures for handling radioactive materials,

purchasing new radiation monitors for its staff, promising to follow NRC regulations in the future, and

contracting with an individual to act as a radiation safety officer to conduct unannounced visits to the

company’s facility to ensure staff compliance with NRC and company rules and regulations.

Pacific Radiopharmacy officials met with the NRC in October 2002 to discuss the violations. 

The NRC has classified one violation as a Severity Level I problem, which carries a $6,000 fine, and

one violation as a Severity Level III problem, which carries a $3,000 fine. The agency uses a fourlevel severity scale in which Severity Level I is the most serious.

The NRC’s letter, its enclosures, and the company’s response will be made available to

interested members of the public through the agency’s public electronic reading room at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in accessing these documents is available from the

NRC Public Document Room at (301) 415-4737 or at 1-800-397-4209.
The company has 30 days from receipt of the letter to either pay the civil penalty or to

challenge imposition of the fine.

###
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CAPRICE BRITT, *

* No. 17-1352V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: May 31, 2022

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine; 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * SIRVA; shoulder injury.

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

Petitioner;

Catherine E. Stolar, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent. 

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On May 27, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition 

for compensation filed by Caprice Britt on September 27, 2017. Petitioner alleged 

that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 4, 2016, which is 

contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused 

her to suffer from a left shoulder injury related to vaccination administration 

(“SIRVA”). Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of this 

injury for more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior 

award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her 

condition.

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Respondent denies that the petitioner sustained a Table injury for SIRVA 

and denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer a shoulder injury or any 

other injury.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $121,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that 

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached 

stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
### §615. Limitation of existing rights

Nothing in this subchapter and sections 601 and 603 of this title shall be construed in any manner to limit or restrict or to authorize the limitation or restriction of any existing rights of any claimant under any valid mining claim heretofore located, except as such rights may be limited or restricted as a result of a proceeding pursuant to section 613 of this title, or as a result of a waiver and relinquishment pursuant to section 614 of this title; and nothing in this subchapter and sections 601 and 603 of this title shall be construed in any manner to authorized inclusion in any patent hereafter issued under the mining laws of the United States for any mining claim heretofore or hereafter located, of any reservation, limitation, or restriction not otherwise authorized by law, or to limit or repeal any existing authority to include any reservation, limitation, or restriction in any such patent, or to limit or restrict any use of the lands covered by any patented or unpatented mining claim by the United States, its lessees, permittees, and licensees which is otherwise authorized by law.

(July 23, 1955, ch. 375, §7, 69 Stat. 372.)
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-05-005 February 1, 2005

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC SCHEDULES REGULATORY CONFERENCE

TO DISCUSS SUMMER NUCLEAR PLANT CONCERN

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a regulatory conference with officials

of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company on February 17 in Atlanta to discuss the risk significance

of an inspection finding at the company’s Summer nuclear power plant, located near Jenkinsville, S.C.

NRC and SCE&G officials will discuss the significance of concerns associated with the

company’s corrective actions for a design control issue involving the emergency feedwater system, a

system used to provide additional cooling water during an emergency. Specifically, the NRC

inspection identified a deficiency in the design of the emergency feedwater system flow control valves,

which could have resulted in a failure of the system if debris clogged the valves.

This finding only affected the alternate source of water for the system and did not impact

normal operation. Other methods of cooling the reactor were also not affected, and there is no

immediate safety concern because SCE&G instituted compensatory measures including operator

actions to install temporary hoses to bypass the valves if they become clogged. 

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a colorcoded system which classifies findings as either green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order of

safety significance. The NRC’s preliminary evaluation determined that the safety significance of this

issue at Summer is white, meaning that it is considered to be of low to moderate safety significance. 

The meeting is open to public observation and is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. in the NRC’s Region

II office, located on the 24th floor of the Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street SW in Atlanta.

No decisions on the final safety significance, any apparent violation or any possible

enforcement action will be made during the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC

officials at a later time.

###
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3508

___________ Hollis J. Larson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. David Crist; David Corbo; * Pat Lais; Michael Seath; Ronald * [UNPUBLISHED] Schwindel; John Doe; Jeffrey * White; Eric Hennen; John Sofie; * Chris Chute; Athanasios Chronakos; * Jessica Serowiecki; Michael Spah; * Suzette Borst; Harley Nelson; Cari * Gerlicher; Monica Lais; T. Boone, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 22, 2009 Filed: January 28, 2009

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and reco mmendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2 In his notice of appeal, Larson designate s for appeal various other rulings by the district court but he does not raise any of these matters in his opening brief. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp. , 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are deemed waived). -2- Minnesota inmate Hollis Larson appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and the denial of his motion for default judgment. 2Following careful review of the record and the briefs, see Johnson v. Blaukat , 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo); Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp. , 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996) (denial of default judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion), we find no grounds for reversal, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Larson’s pending motions.

______________________________
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 Statement Pursuant to Section 906 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
By
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Dated: May 6, 2005 I, Jeffrey A. Quiram, Chief Executive Officer of Superconductor Technologies Inc, herby
certify that, to my knowledge, that: 1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Superconductor Technologies for the three
month period ended April 2, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Superconductor Technologies Inc. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date first written
above. /s/ Jeffrey A. QuiramJeffrey A. QuiramPresident and Chief Executive Officer