alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24233]


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

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIMES AND DATES:  8-5 p.m., November 29-30, 2004.

PLACE:  Renaissance Washington, DC Hotel, 999 9th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC.

STATUS:  This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Reports from the Chairperson and the 
Executive Director, Team Reports, Discussion on the Planning for Civil 
Rights Roundtable, Panel on Outdoor Activities for People with 
Disabilities; Unfinished Business, New Business, Announcements, 
Adjournment

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark S. Quigley, Director of 
Communications, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW., 
Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (Voice), 202-272-2074 
(TTY), 202-272-2022 (Fax), <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b667a7e626c676e724b65686f256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94f9e5e1fdf3f8f1edd4faf7f0baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a> (E-mail).

AGENCY MISSION: The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an 
independent federal agency composed of 15 members appointed by the 
President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Its overall purpose is to 
promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee 
equal opportunity for all people with disabilities, including people 
from culturally diverse backgrounds, regardless of the nature or 
significance of the disability; and to empower people with disabilities 
to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion 
and integration into all aspects of society.

ACCOMMODATIONS: Those needing sign language interpreters or other 
disability accommodations should notify NCD at least one week before 
this meeting.

LANGUAGE TRANSLATION: In accordance with E.O. 13166, Improving Access 
to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, those people 
with disabilities who are limited English proficient and seek 
translation services for this meeting should notify NCD at least one 
week before this meeting.

MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY/ENVIRONMENTAL ILLNESS: People with 
multiple chemical sensitivity/environmental illness must reduce their 
exposure to volatile chemical substances to attend this meeting. To 
reduce such exposure, NCD requests that attendees not wear perfumes or 
scented products at this meeting. Smoking is prohibited in meeting 
rooms and surrounding areas.

    Dated: October 25, 2004.
Ethel D. Briggs,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 04-24233 Filed 10-26-04; 1:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 10400.2 The Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator—organization and functions.

The Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator was created by Title III of the Pro IP Act of 2008, 15 U.S.C. 8111 *et seq.* The mission of IPEC is to advise the President and coordinate with Cabinet departments and agencies on the development of the United States' overall intellectual property policy and strategy, to promote innovation and creativity, and to ensure effective intellectual property protection and enforcement, domestically and abroad. IPEC is headed by the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.
### §456. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §111, May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 486

Section, Pub. L. 92–225, title IV, §407, as added Pub. L. 93–443, title III, §302, Oct. 15, 1974, 88 Stat. 1290, gave Commission additional enforcement authority by providing for disqualification of candidates for Federal office from elections for Federal office for a period of time following a finding by Commission that candidate failed to file a required report.

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

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–283 not to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under this section or penalty, with this section or penalty to be treated as remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, see section 114 of Pub. L. 94–283, set out as a note under section 441 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K) for the period ended June 30, 2006 of MPW
Industrial Services Group, Inc. (the Issuer) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date hereof. I, Monte R. Black, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: October 13, 2006



/s/ Monte R. BlackMonte R. BlackChairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer and President
§ 202.2 Applications. ( a ) *Who may file.* Applications for an investigation to which this part 202 relates may be filed by any firm, association of firms, or corporation engaged in the production of a domestic article, or by any duly authorized representative of the foregoing.
( b ) *Requirements for applications.* In addition to conforming with the requirements of § 201.8 of this chapter, applications under this part 202 shall include the following: ( 1 ) A clear statement that they are requests for investigations for the purposes of section 336;
( 2 ) The name or description of the article concerning which an investigation is sought;
( 3 ) A reference to the tariff provision or provisions applicable to such article; and
( 4 ) A statement indicating whether an increase or a decrease in the rate of duty is sought.
( c ) *Supporting information.* The applicant must file with his application such supporting information as may be in his possession. As far as practicable, information of the following character should be furnished: ( 1 ) Comparability of the domestic and foreign articles and the degree of competition between them.
( 2 ) Trend in recent years of ( i ) domestic production,
( ii ) domestic sales,
( iii ) imports,
( iv ) costs of production, and
( v ) prices.
( 3 ) Evidence of difference between domestic and foreign costs of production of the articles involved.
( 4 ) Areas of greatest competition between the imported and domestic products and the principal market or markets in the United States.
( 5 ) Other relevant factors that constitute, in the opinion of the applicant, an advantage or disadvantage in competition, and any other information which the applicant believes the Commission should consider.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margoretti RUCKER, a/k/a Major, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4339.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Jacqueline A. Hallman, Hallinan Law Office, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Samuel David Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Margoretti Rucker seeks to appeal the district court’s order entered pursuant to his criminal conviction. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

*88Criminal defendants have ten days from the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, *see*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 11, 2000. Rucker’s notice of appeal was dated April 22, 2001, and filed on May 2, 2001. Because Rucker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
#### **Exhibit 32.1**

### **Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Conceptus,Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            the accompanying Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 7, 2006 |
|------------------------|
|                   |
|                   | /s/ Mark M. Sieczkarek |   |
|                   | Mark M. Sieczkarek |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
(November 8, 1943.)

#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Joseph L. Kallus, Respondent, and Ideal Novelty & Toy Company, Appellant.

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

Walnut Creek Field Office

1450 Maria Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5378

CONTACT: Mark Hammond April

3, 1996

Office: (510) 975-0254 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Home: (415) 674-1024

RIV-2496

Pager: (800) 916-4952

NRC STAFF APPROVES AMENDMENT FOR PALO VERDE

TO MOVE STUCK FUEL ASSEMBLY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has approved a

temporary license amendment that enables efforts to proceed to

remove a fuel assembly stuck in the Unit 2 reactor vessel at the

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Buckeye, AZ. Arizona

Public Service Co. personnel may remove the assembly tomorrow.

APS personnel experienced difficulty in removing the fuel

assembly during routine refueling operations at the Unit 2

reactor on March 24 and subsequently determined that the assembly

had suffered structural damage and was stuck in the reactor.

The NRC staff action authorizes a temporary change to Palo

Verde's technical specifications that permits the plant to use a

manually operated hoist rather than a refueling crane customarily

used during refueling operations.

Use of the hoist is necessary because the fuel assembly is

being reinforced, with metal plates on top and bottom and metal

cables down the sides, to ensure its structural integrity. That

increases the assembly's dimensions slightly, so that there is

not sufficient clearance at certain points if the assembly was

moved with the refueling crane.

NRC staff has reviewed Palo Verde's plans for the removal

project as they developed over the last several days. They

include the licensee's use of structural reinforcements to the

assembly, notches in the lower end fitting of the assembly to

relieve stress and the installation of hydraulic jacks beneath

the assembly to boost it upwards.

Palo Verde has successfully removed the other 240 fuel

assemblies from the reactor core earlier in the Unit 2 refueling

outage. The remaining assembly is submerged in coolant water, and

monitoring has indicated no damage to fuel pins and no release of

radiation. The temporary license amendment approved by NRC staff

will expire when the damaged fuel assembly has been moved to the
unit's spent fuel pool.

####
#### In re Bernard S. LEVI, Petitioner.

No. 02-6567.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

*378Bernard S. Levi, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Bernard S. Levi filed this mandamus petition seeking to compel prison officials to restrain from tampering with his legal mail. Mandamus is a drastic remedy only to be used in extraordinary circumstances. *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir.1987). Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought and there are no other adequate means for obtaining the requested relief. *Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980); *Beard,*811 F.2d at 826. Levi has not demonstrated his right to the relief sought and he has an adequate remedy in that he may file a civil complaint in district court. We find Levi is not entitled to the drastic remedy of mandamus relief.

We grant Levi’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny as unnecessary Levi’s motion to waive the filing fee. We deny Levi’s motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Editorial Note on Part 174
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 174 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 174.2 Applicability of provisions. ( a ) *In general.* The provisions of this part shall be applicable to protests against decisions involving: ( 1 ) Articles excluded from entry or entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after October 1, 1970;
( 2 ) Articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to October 1, 1970, for which appraisement has not become final by October 1, 1970;
( 3 ) Articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to October 1, 1970, for which the appraisement has become final but with respect to which the entry has not been liquidated prior to October 1, 1970;
( 4 ) Articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption with respect to which the entry has been liquidated prior to October 1, 1970, if ( i ) The time for filing a protest has not expired and a protest has not been filed prior to October 1, 1970; or
( ii ) A protest has been filed and has not been disallowed in whole or in part before October 1, 1970; or
( 5 ) Articles excluded from entry before October 1, 1970, with respect to which ( i ) The time for filing a protest has not expired and a protest has not been filed prior to October 1, 1970; or
( ii ) A protest has been filed and has not been disallowed in whole or in part before October 1, 1970.
( b ) *Limitation* — ( 1 ) *Appraisement not final.* When the appraisement of articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to October 1, 1970, is not final by October 1, 1970, because an appeal for reappraisement was timely filed prior to such date, the provisions of this part relating to protests shall be applicable to a protest filed after the court's decision on the appeal to reappraisement has become final. Such protest shall not include issues which were raised or could have been raised on the appeal for reappraisement.
( 2 ) *Appraisement final.* When the appraisement of articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to October 1, 1970, has become final prior to October 1, 1970, but the entry has not been liquidated by such date, a protest filed in accordance with the provisions of this part after such liquidation shall not include issues which were raised or could have been raised on an appeal to reappraisement before the appraisement became final.
( 3 ) *Protest not disallowed.* When a protest filed prior to October 1, 1970, has not been disallowed in whole or in part before such date, the provisions of this part shall be applicable to such protests. The time within which any action must be taken under the provisions of this part with respect to such a protest shall commence on the date the protest was in fact filed.
[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR, 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 71-60, 36 FR 3116, Feb. 18, 1971]
### §271. Establishment

There shall be in the Senate an office to be known as the Office of the Legislative Counsel, and to be under the direction of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate.

(Feb. 24, 1919, ch. 18, title XIII, §1303(a), (d), 40 Stat. 1141; June 2, 1924, ch. 234, title XI, §1101, 43 Stat. 353.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

As originally enacted, section provided for creation of an office of the legislative counsel to be under the direction of two legislative counsels. In view of nonapplicability of section to Speaker, employee, etc., of the House of Representatives pursuant to section 531 of Pub. L. 91–510, set out as a note under section 281 of this title, section has been revised to limit applicability to Senate and creation therein of Office of Legislative Counsel. See section 281 of this title for provisions establishing Office of the Legislative Counsel for the House of Representatives and section 282 of this title for provisions vesting management, etc., in the Legislative Counsel.

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

#### Appropriations

Act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, §204, 60 Stat. 837, provided: "There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the work of the Office of the Legislative Counsel the following sums:

"(1) For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, $150,000;

"(2) For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, $200,000;

"(3) For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1949, $250,000;

"(4) For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, $250,000; and

"(5) For each fiscal year thereafter such sums as may be necessary to carry on the work of the Office."

[Section 204 of act Aug. 2, 1946, set out above, was made effective Aug. 2, 1946, by section 245 of act Aug. 2, 1946, set out as a note under section 4301 of this title.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-23463-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN

MARIA PEREZ-SERA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORP.,

Defendant.

______________________/

POST-DISCOVERY HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

On December 14, 2021, the Undersigned held a Zoom teleconference hearing on 

the parties’ discovery dispute. [ECF No. 36]. For the reasons stated on the record, the 

Undersigned orders and adjudges as follows:

The parties shall have until December 23, 2021 to take Dr. Charles Jordan’s 

deposition. 

It appears to the Undersigned that Dr. Jordan and/or his office has been less than 

cooperative in scheduling the deposition, even though a subpoena for his deposition has,

in fact, been served. The Undersigned appreciates the fact that Dr. Jordan is a busy 

surgeon. However, Dr. Jordan can, surely, find time to schedule a deposition between 

now and December 23, 2021. If the Court learns that Dr. Jordan is not cooperative going 

Case 1:20-cv-23463-MGC Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

forward, he may be confronted with other consequences. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on December 14, 2021.

Copies furnished to:

The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23463-MGC Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/14/2021 Page 2 of 2
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-59 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, April 24, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS: ENVIROCARE INSPECTION REPORT

On April 22, the “Selected NRC Documents” page on the NRC

web site contained a link to a newly issued inspection report

concerning Envirocare of Utah. The link erroneously said the

report included a Notice of Violation. The report includes no

such citation. The link has since been corrected.

###
§ 1206.3 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this part: ( a ) *Meeting* means deliberations of at least two Board members that determine or result in the joint conduct of official Board business.
( b ) *Member* means one of the members of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-04-0167 - Litigation Report 2004 - 02

Accession Number: ML042640332

Date Released: Monday, October 4, 2004

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML042640295 - SECY-04-0167 - Litigation Report 2004 - 02 (3 page(s), 9/17/2004)
    - ML040760373 - SECY-04-0167 - Litigation Report - 2004 - 02 (48 page(s), 9/17/2004)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### § 191.74 Exportation by mail.

If the merchandise on which drawback is to be claimed is exported by mail or parcel post, the official postal records (original or copies) which describe the mail shipment shall be sufficient to prove exportation. The postal record shall be identified on the drawback entry, and shall be retained by the claimant and submitted as part of the drawback claim (see § 191.51(a)).

[T.D. 98-16, 63 FR 11006, Mar. 5, 1998; 63 FR 15289, Mar. 31, 1998, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-11, 80 FR 47407, Aug. 7, 2015]
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93018, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 134.23 Containers or holders designed for or capable of reuse. ( a ) *Usual and ordinary reusable containers or holders.* Except for goods of a NAFTA or USMCA country which are usual containers, containers or holders designed for or capable of reuse after the contents have been consumed, whether imported full or empty, must be individually marked to indicate the country of their own origin with a marking such as, “Container Made in (name of country).” Examples of the containers or holders contemplated are heavy duty steel drums, tanks, and other similar shipping, storage, transportation containers or holders capable of reuse. These containers or holders are subject to the treatment specified in General Rule of Interpretation 5(b), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202).
( b ) *Other reusable containers or holders.* Containers or holders which give the whole importation its essential character, as described in General Rule of Interpretation 5(a) (19 U.S.C. 1202), must be individually marked to clearly indicate their own origin with a marking such as, “Container made in (name of country).” Examples of the containers contemplated are mustard jars reusable as beer mugs; shaving soap containers reusable as shaving mugs; fancy cologne bottles reusable as flower vases, and other containers which have a lasting value or decorative use.
[T.D. 72-262, 37 FR 20318, Sept. 29, 1972, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51256, Dec. 21, 1988; T.D. 94-1, 58 FR 69471, Dec. 30, 1993; CBP Dec. 21-10, 86 FR 35582, July 6, 2021]