alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 301.41 Maintenance of records. ( a ) Pursuant to section 3(e) and section 8(d)(1), of the Act, each manufacturer or dealer in fur products or furs (including dressers, dyers, bleachers and processors), irrespective of whether any guaranty has been given or received, shall maintain records showing all of the required information relative to such fur products or furs in such manner as will readily identify each fur or fur product manufactured or handled. Such records shall show: ( 1 ) That the fur product contains or is composed of natural, pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such is the fact;
( 2 ) That the fur product contains used fur, when such is the fact;
( 3 ) The name or names (as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide) of the animal or animals that produced the fur;
( 4 ) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces, or waste fur, when such is the fact;
( 5 ) The name of the country of origin of any imported furs used in the fur products;
( 6 ) The name, or other identification issued and registered by the Commission, of one or more of the persons who manufacture, import, sell, advertise, offer, transport or distribute the fur product in commerce.
( b ) The purpose of the records is to permit a determination that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met and to establish a traceable line of continuity from raw material through processing to finished product. The records shall be preserved for at least three years.
[53 FR 31315, Aug. 18, 1988, as amended at 79 FR 30458, May 28, 2014]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 89 FR 71805, Sept. 4, 2024.

§ 1.41 Designation of hedging accounts. ( a ) A futures commission merchant must provide an opportunity to each customer, when it first opens a futures account, foreign futures account or cleared swaps account with such futures commission merchant, to designate such account as a hedging account. The futures commission merchant must indicate prominently in the accounting records in which it maintains open trade balances whether, for each customer account, the account is designated as a hedging account.
( b ) A futures commission merchant may permit the customer to open an account as a hedging account only if it obtains the customer's written representation that the customer's trading of futures or options on futures, foreign futures or options on foreign futures, or cleared swaps (as applicable) in the account constitutes hedging as such term may be defined under any relevant Commission regulation or rule of any clearing organization, designated contract market, swap execution facility or foreign board of trade.
( c ) The requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to a futures commission merchant with respect to any commodity contract account that the futures commission merchant opened prior to May 13, 2021. The futures commission merchant may continue to designate as a hedging account any account with respect to which the futures commission merchant received written hedging instructions from the customer in accordance with former § 190.06(d) of this chapter.
( d ) A futures commission merchant may designate an existing futures account, foreign futures account or cleared swaps account of a particular customer as a hedging account, provided that it has obtained the representation set out in paragraph (b) of this section from such customer.
[86 FR 19419, Apr. 13, 2021]
No: 13-099 November 22, 2013

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Extends Construction Permit for Watts Bar Unit 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has extended the expiration date of the construction 

permit for the unfinished Unit 2 at the Watts Bar nuclear power plant to Sept. 30, 2016. The Tennessee 

Valley Authority, which operates Unit 1 at the plant about 10 miles south of Spring City, Tenn., 

requested the extension on May 17, 2012.

The NRC staff’s environmental assessment of the extension request, which found no significant 

impact on the environment, was published in the Federal Register on Oct. 22, 2013. The agency has 

issued the staff’s safety evaluation of the extension, as well as an order extending the construction 

permit. The documents will appear shortly in the Federal Register. Any person adversely affected by 

the order may request a hearing within 20 days of its publication in the Register, specifically listing 

whether TVA failed to show good cause for the extension and why the NRC should not have issued the 

order. The order includes instructions on how to file a hearing request.

TVA has informed the NRC it intends to complete Unit 2 and request an operating license in 

2014. The NRC will decide whether to issue a license for Unit 2 in accordance with the agency’s 

regulations. Unit 2, if completed, would be an 1,100-MWe, Westinghouse-designed pressurized water 

reactor essentially the same as the operating Unit 1. More information on Watts Bar Unit 2 is available 

on the NRC’s website.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 314]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ314.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 3823]]

Public Law 104-314
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To designate 51.7 miles of the Clarion River, located in Pennsylvania, 
         as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
             System. <<NOTE: Oct. 19, 1996 -  [H.R. 3568]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3(a) of the 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``( ) Clarion river, pennsylvania.--The 51.7-mile 
        segment of the main stem of the Clarion River from the Allegheny 
        National Forest/State Game Lands Number 44 boundary, located 
        approximately 0.7 miles downstream from the Ridgway Borough 
        limit, to an unnamed tributary in the backwaters of Piney Dam 
        approximately 0.6 miles downstream from Blyson Run, to be 
        administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in the following 
        classifications:
                    ``(A) The approximately 8.6-mile segment of the main 
                stem from the Allegheny National Forest/State Game Lands 
                Number 44 boundary, located approximately 0.7 miles 
                downstream from the Ridgway Borough limit, to Portland 
                Mills, as a recreational river.
                    ``(B) The approximately 8-mile segment of the main 
                stem from Portland Mills to the Allegheny National 
                Forest boundary, located approximately 0.8 miles 
                downstream from Irwin Run, as a scenic river.
                    ``(C) The approximately 26-mile segment of the main 
                stem from the Allegheny National Forest boundary, 
                located approximately 0.8 miles downstream from Irwin 
                Run, to the State Game Lands 283 boundary, located 
                approximately 0.9 miles downstream from the Cooksburg 
                bridge, as a recreational river.
                    ``(D) The approximately 9.1-mile segment of the main 
                stem from the State Game Lands 283 boundary, located 
                approximately 0.9 miles downstream from the Cooksburg 
                bridge, to an unnamed tributary at the backwaters of 
                Piney Dam, located approximately 0.6 miles downstream 
                from Blyson Run, as a scenic river.''.

    Approved October 19, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3568:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-825 (Comm. on Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            Sept. 25, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 238.4 Switch after sale. No practice should be pursued by an advertiser, in the event of sale of the advertised product, of “unselling” with the intent and purpose of selling other merchandise in its stead. Among acts or practices which will be considered in determining if the initial sale was in good faith, and not a strategem to sell other merchandise, are: ( a ) Accepting a deposit for the advertised product, then switching the purchaser to a higher-priced product,
( b ) Failure to make delivery of the advertised product within a reasonable time or to make a refund,
( c ) Disparagement by acts or words of the advertised product, or the disparagement of the guarantee, credit terms, availability of service, repairs, or in any other respect, in connection with it,
( d ) The delivery of the advertised product which is defective, unusable or impractical for the purpose represented or implied in the advertisement. [Guide 4]
Note:
*Sales of advertised merchandise.* Sales of the advertised merchandise do not preclude the existence of a bait and switch scheme. It has been determined that, on occasions, this is a mere incidental byproduct of the fundamental plan and is intended to provide an aura of legitimacy to the overall operation.
No: IV-16-008 April 5, 2016 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks 817-200-1128

 

NRC Will Hold an Open House on River Bend Nuclear Plant Performance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold an open house April 19 to discuss the 

agency’s assessment of the River Bend nuclear power plant’s 2015 safety performance. The plant is 

located in St. Francisville, La.

NRC staff will be on hand from 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. at the Town Hall Meeting Room of the St. 

Francisville Town Hall, 11936 Ferdinand St. in St. Francisville. While there are no formal presentations 

during the open house, the public will have an opportunity to ask about NRC’s assessment of the 

plant’s performance in 2015 and the agency’s oversight plans for 2016. Among the NRC staff in 

attendance will be the Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant on a full-time basis.

NRC assesses plant performance through the use of inspection findings and other indicators that 

can trigger additional regulatory oversight if needed. Overall, River Bend operated safely during 2015, 

but is receiving additional oversight as a result of an inspection finding of low to moderate safety 

significance related to an unplanned reactor shutdown that occurred on Dec. 25, 2014.

Following that shutdown, some problems were experienced with the plant’s feedwater system, 

which supplies short-term cooling water to the reactor core. Several electrical circuit breakers also 

failed to operate properly. The NRC will conduct an additional inspection during 2016 to verify that 

Entergy officials have taken appropriate corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of River Bend and the nation’s other 

commercial nuclear power plants,” NRC Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas said. “The open house 

will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with local 

officials and residents who live near the plant.”

Inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by 

specialist inspectors from the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, and the agency’s headquarters in 

Rockville, Md. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance of the 

plant during 2015. Current performance information for the plant can be found on the NRC website.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70289-70290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26582]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 
92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces 
its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The 
Purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The 
agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards. The majority of these 
meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson, Blvd., Arlington, 
Virginia 22230.
    All of these meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals 
being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential 
nature, including technical information; financial data, such as 
salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), 
(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to 
review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    These closed proposal review meeting will no longer be announced on 
an individual basis in the Federal Register. NSF intends to publish a 
notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of 
the closed proposal review meetings that include the names

[[Page 70290]]

of the proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any 
information on changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the 
NSF Web-site: http://www.nsf.gov/home/pubinfo/advisory.htm. This 
information may also be requested by telephoning (703) 292-8182.

    Dated: November 29, 2004.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-26582 Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 922

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 922 appear at 62 FR 3789, Jan. 27, 1997 and at 62 FR 67724, Dec. 30, 1997.

#### § 922.102 Definitions.

In addition to those definitions found at § 922.11, the following definitions apply to this subpart:

*Live rock* means any Coral, basalt rock, or other natural structure with any living organisms growing in or on the Coral, basalt rock, or structure.

*Stowed and not available for immediate use* means not readily accessible for immediate use, e.g., by being securely covered and lashed to a deck or bulkhead, tied down, unbaited, unloaded, or partially disassembled (such as spear shafts being kept separate from spear guns).

[77 FR 43962, July 26, 2012, as amended at 88 FR 966, Jan. 6, 2023]
### §12404. Demonstrations

#### (a) Requirement

The Secretary shall conduct demonstrations of critical technologies, preferably in self-contained locations, so that technical and non-technical parameters can be evaluated to best determine commercial applicability of the technology.

#### (b) Small-scale demonstrations

Concurrently with activities conducted pursuant to section 12403 of this title, the Secretary shall conduct small-scale demonstrations of hydrogen technology at self-contained sites.

#### (c) Non-Federal funding

The Secretary shall require a commitment from non-Federal sources of at least 50 percent of the cost of any demonstration conducted under this section.

(Pub. L. 101–566, §105, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2799; Pub. L. 104–271, title I, §104, Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3306.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–271 added subsec. (c).
#### Paul O’Reilly-Hyland et al., Respondents, v Liberty Management & Construction Ltd. et al., Defendants, and David Jay Weiner Architects, P.C., et al., Appellants. Paul O’Reilly-Hyland et al., Appellants, v Liberty Management & Construction Ltd. et al., Defendants, and David Jay Weiner Architects, P.C., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[822 NYS2d 243]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered June 10, 2005, which, in an action for architectural malpractice and breach of contract, denied defendants architects’ motion to set aside the verdict insofar as it awarded plaintiffs damages for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, *766without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered June 14, 2005, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict as inadequate insofar as it awarded them $167,998 for breach of contract, and as excessive insofar as it awarded defendants more than $112,749.99 on their counterclaim for breach of contract, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the award to defendants from $160,171 to $112,749.99, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The verdict in favor of plaintiffs is supported by the weight of the evidence, including plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony showing that defendants furnished inaccurate drawings to contractors and authorized construction of structures they knew were faulty, and defendants’ evidence that plaintiffs made multiple, substantial revisions to the original plans, in some cases after the work was performed. Given the charge, which did not ask for an itemization of damages, exactly what evidence was credited or rejected by the jury in assessing plaintiffs’ damages cannot be determined, but we are satisfied that the $167,998 figure represents a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see McDermott v Coffee, Ltd.,*9 AD3d 195, 206-207 [2004]). Absent a formal motion by defendants to amend the ad damnum clause in their counterclaim, their damages for nonpayment must be limited to the amount sought in the counterclaim, namely $112,749.99 *(see Reid v Weir-Metro Ambulance Serv.,*191 AD2d 309 [1993]). Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments, including that a net judgment should have been directed, are not preserved and we decline to review them. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

INGREAT NORRIS SWIFT, a.k.a. Norris

Ingreat Swift,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10091

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00329-JCM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Ingreat Norris Swift appeals from the conviction and 92-month sentence

imposed following his guilty-plea to interstate transportation with intent to engage

in criminal sexual activity (prostitution), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421. We

FILED

FEB 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10091

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and

remand for resentencing.

Swift correctly asserts that the district court procedurally erred by

incorrectly calculating the applicable Guidelines range. See United States v. Carty,

520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Takahashi,

205 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2, cmt., n.1. (2009). The

most appropriate offense guideline for the conviction at issue is U.S.S.G. § 2G1.1;

therefore it was error for the district court to rely on § 2G1.3 in calculating Swift’s

base offense level. We vacate Swift’s sentence and remand for resentencing

consistent with this opinion. 

Swift also contends that the district court erred by refusing to consider his

motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and by denying his motion to continue the

sentencing hearing to allow him to brief the issue. The district court did not abuse

its discretion by ruling that Swift’s unsupported claim of innocence was not a fair

and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Turner, 898 F.2d

705, 713 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. In light of the

foregoing disposition, the district court’s denial of a continuance is moot.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED for

RESENTENCING.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b)  AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Jon E. Kirchner hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date: August 8, 2008By:

/s/JON E. KIRCHNERJon E. Kirchner President and Chief Executive Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to DTS, Inc. and will be retained by
DTS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
### §12633. Supplementation

#### (a) In general

Assistance provided under this subchapter shall be used to supplement the level of State and local public funds expended for services of the type assisted under this subchapter in the previous fiscal year.

#### (b) Aggregate expenditure

Subsection (a) shall be satisfied, with respect to a particular program, if the aggregate expenditure for such program for the fiscal year in which services are to be provided will not be less than the aggregate expenditure for such program in the previous fiscal year, excluding the amount of Federal assistance provided and any other amounts used to pay the remainder of the costs of programs assisted under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §173, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3160.)
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Quarterly Oct-Dec 2014 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206.

Accession Number: ML15006A197

Date Released: Monday, February 9, 2015

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.
    - ML15006A194 - Quarterly Oct-Dec 2014 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206 (Memo). (3 page(s), 1/30/2015)
    - ML15006A201 - Quarterly Oct-Dec 2014 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (22 page(s), 1/30/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 308.4 Special rule for infrequent publications. ( a ) The provider of any pay-per-call service that advertises a pay-per-call service in a publication that meets the requirements set forth in § 308.4(c) may include in such advertisement, in lieu of the cost disclosures required by § 308.3(b), a clear and conspicuous disclosure that a call to the advertised pay-per-call service may result in a substantial charge.
( b ) The provider of any pay-per-call service that places an alphabetical listing in a publication that meets the requirements set forth in § 308.4(c) is not required to make any of the disclosures required by §§ 308.3 (b), (c), (d) and (f) in the alphabetical listing, provided that such listing does not contain any information except the name, address and telephone number of the pay-per-call provider.
( c ) The publication referred to in § 308.4 (a) and (b) must be: ( 1 ) Widely distributed;
( 2 ) Printed annually or less frequently; and
( 3 ) One that has an established policy of not publishing specific prices in advertisements.