(a) The danger zone. From Punta Conejo on the south coast of Vieques at latitude 18°06′30″, longitude 65°22′33″; thence to latitude 18°03′00″, longitude 65°21′00″; thence to latitude 18°03′00″, longitude 65°15′30″; thence to latitude 18°11′30″, longitude 65°14′30″; thence to latitude 18°12′00″, longitude 65°20′00″; and thence to Cabellos Colorados on the north coast of Vieques at latitude 18°09′49″, longitude 65°23′27″.
(b) Regulations. (1) It will be open to navigation at all times except when firing is being conducted. At such times, no persons or surface vessels, except those patrolling the area, shall enter or remain within the danger area. Prior to conducting each firing or dropping of ordnance the danger area will be patrolled to insure that no watercraft are within the danger area. Any watercraft in the vicinity will be warned that practice firing is about to take place and advised to vacate the area.
(2) The regulations will be enforced by the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Caribbean, U.S. Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, and such agencies and subordinate commands as he/she may designate.
(Sec. 7, 40 Stat. 266, (33 U.S.C. 1))
[39 FR 27133, July 25, 1974, as amended at 46 FR 29935, June 4, 1981. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985, as amended at 62 FR 17559, Apr. 10, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Zenon, 285 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.P.R. 2003).
· cites it 12× “They further contend that the Court also illegally denied them their right to raise a valid defense because, in cases where a criminal charge is brought under 33 C.F.R. § 334.1470 , a mandatory eviden- *113 tiary hearing must be held in which the defendants may establish, as a…”
United States v. Ayala Ayala, 289 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2002).
“Ayala and Ortiz counter that they were not charged with violating 33 C.F.R. § 334.1470 (barring entry into a danger zone), but rather 32 C.”
United States v. Zenón-Encarnación, 387 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2004).
· cites it 7× “33 C.F.R. § 334.1470 . The Navy had previously posted notices announcing the exercise in both Spanish and English.”
United States v. Zenón-Rodríguez, 289 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2002).
· cites it 10× “When the FURA officers found the Zen-óns in South Salinas Bay, the Zenóns were within the danger zone 1 around Camp Garcia outlined in 33 C.F.R. § 334.1470 . 2 A regular weekly fishermen’s warning notice, which in the normal course is sent to nine locations, was distributed on…”
United States v. De Jesus, 108 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.P.R. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See 33 C.F.R. § 334.1470 . Thus, the requirement of two-weeks’ notice is not applicable in the instant case.”
United States v. Mulero-Joubert, 289 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2002).
· cites it 4× “At trial, however, the government introduced as evidence maps reflecting a “danger zone,” established by 33 C.F.R. § 334.1470 , which included the *170 island within its boundaries.”
United States v. Zenon, 182 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D.P.R. 2002).
· cites it 5× “§ 1382 (1994) and 33 C.F.R. § 334.1470 (2001). Docket Document Nos.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.