alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 29.2518 Finish.

The reflectance factor in color perception. Finish indicates the sheen or shine of the surface of a tobacco leaf. (See chart, § 29.2601.)
#### § 29.58 Who may obtain inspection.

Inspection, sampling, or weighing as described in § 29.56 may be requested by an interested party, or his authorized agent, by filing an application in accordance with §§ 29.59 and 29.60.
### * After examining the Anders brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument

is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the brief and the record. See Fed. R. App.

P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 24, 2009 *

Decided October 6, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 2430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

JAMES SMITH,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:06

‐ cr

‐ 00682

‐ 4

Samuel Der

‐ Yeghiayan,

Judge

.

O R D E R

On June 4, 2008, defendant

‐ appellant James Smith (“Smith”) filed a notice of direct appeal

after pleading guilty to two counts of violating 21 U.S.C. § 843, use of a telephone to commit

a controlled substance offense, and being sentenced to a total of 96 months in the custody of the

Bureau of Prisons. 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

‐ 2430 Page 2

On February 26, 2009, his appointed counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California

,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that despite thoroughly scrutinizing the record, he was unable to

discern a non

‐ frivolous issue to pursue. On February 27, 2009, we informed Smith that he had

thirty days to present any argument to demonstrate that his conviction and/or sentence was

invalid. Smith presented no such argument.

We have reviewed the brief presented by counsel and agree that there is no non

‐ frivolous

issue. According, we affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence, and grant the motion to

withdraw.
#### § 29.2403 Rule 12.

The use of any grade may be restricted by the Director during any marketing season, when it is found that the grade is not needed or appears in insufficient volume to justify its use.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Echols, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered May 25, 1978, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to a term from one year to life, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter is remanded for a new trial. The Trial Judge erred in refusing to submit, as requested, the defense of agency to the jury. It is "the established New York rule that one who acts solely as the agent of a purchaser of narcotics cannot be convicted of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance.” *(People v Roche,*45 NY2d 78; 81.) Appellant testified that he had received no money and had merely, upon the undercover police officer’s request for assistance in obtaining drugs, pointed out to him a person called "James” as someone who had heroin for sale. Thereafter, the transaction took place between the undercover officer and "James”. In *People*v *Roche (supra,*p 86), the court stated "so long as there is some reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant acted as a mere instrumentality of the buyer, determination of the existence of an agency relationship should be submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions”. The People concede that the defendant was entitled to this charge. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.
#### § 29.2552 Steam-dried.

The condition of unfermented tobacco as customarily prepared for storage by means of a redrying machine or other steam-conditioning equipment.

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
§ 3430.1202 Definitions. The definitions applicable to the VSGP grants under this subpart include: *Citizen or national of the United States* which means: ( 1 ) A citizen or national of the United States, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1401; or,
( 2 ) A national of the United States, as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22), who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
*Practice of veterinary medicine* means to diagnose, treat, correct, change, alleviate, or prevent animal disease, illness, pain, deformity, defect, injury, or other physical, dental, or mental conditions by any method or mode including: ( 1 ) The prescription, dispensing, administration, or application of any drug, medicine, biologic, apparatus, anesthetic, or other therapeutic or diagnostic substance or medical or surgical technique, or
( 2 ) The use of complementary, alternative, and integrative therapies, or
( 3 ) The use of any manual or mechanical procedure for reproductive management, or
( 4 ) The rendering of advice or recommendation by any means including telephonic and other electronic communications with regard to any of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this definition.
*Qualified entity* means an eligible entity (see § 3430.1203 for a list of eligible applicants for each project type) that carries out programs or activities that the Secretary determines will: ( 1 ) Substantially relieve veterinarian shortage situations;
( 2 ) Support or facilitate private veterinary practices engaged in public health activities; or
( 3 ) Support or facilitate the practices of veterinarians who are providing or have completed providing services under an agreement entered into with the Secretary under 7 U.S.C. 3151a(a)(2).
*Rural area* is defined in section 343(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)).
*Veterinarian* means a U.S. citizen or national who has received a professional veterinary medicine degree from a college of veterinary medicine accredited by the AVMA Council on Education.
*Veterinarian Shortage Situation* means any of the following situations in which the Secretary, in accordance with the process in 7 CFR part 3431 subpart A, determines has a shortage of veterinarians: ( 1 ) Geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of food supply veterinarians; and
( 2 ) Areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of food supply veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, public health, animal health, epidemiology, and food safety.
*Veterinary medicine* means all branches and specialties included within the practice of veterinary medicine.
*Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program or VMLRP* means the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program authorized by the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (7 U.S.C. 3151a).
§ 3.42 Debtor rights to inspect or copy records, submit repayment proposals, or request administrative review. ( a ) A debtor who intends to inspect or copy agency or USDA records with respect to the debt must notify the creditor agency in writing within 30 days of the date of the Notice of Intent to Collect by Administrative Offset. In response, the agency must notify the debtor of the location, time, and any other conditions, consistent with part 1, subpart A, of this title, for inspecting and copying, and that the debtor may be liable for reasonable copying expenses. A decision by the agency under this paragraph will not be subject to review under subpart F of this part or by NAD under part 11 of this title.
( b ) The debtor may, in response to the Notice of Intent to Collect by Administrative Offset, propose to the creditor agency a written agreement to repay the debt as an alternative to administrative offset. Any debtor who wishes to do this must submit a written proposal for repayment of the debt, which must be received by the creditor agency within 30 days of the date of the Notice of Intent to Collect by Administrative Offset or 15 days after the date of a decision adverse to the debtor under subpart F of this part. In response, the creditor agency must notify the debtor in writing whether the proposed agreement is acceptable. In exercising its discretion, the creditor agency must balance the government's interest in collecting the debt against fairness to the debtor. A decision by the agency under this paragraph will not be subject to review under subpart F of this part or by NAD under part 11 of this title. For proposed agreements to pay delinquent amounts owed on FSA FLP loans, the proposed payments in the agreement must cure the delinquency before the next loan installment is due, or within 90 days, whichever is sooner.
( c ) A debtor must request an administrative review of the debt under subpart F of this part within 30 days of the date of the Notice of Intent to Collect by Administrative Offset for purposes of a proposed collection by non-centralized administrative offset and within 60 days of the date of the Notice of Intent to Collect by Administrative Offset for purposes of a proposed collection by referral to Treasury for centralized offset against other Federal payments that would include tax refunds.
Editorial Note on Part 3400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3400.14 Proposal review. ( a ) All research grant applications will be acknowledged. Prior to technical examination, a preliminary review will be made for responsiveness to the request for proposals (e.g., relationship of application to research program area). Proposals which do not fall within the guidelines as stated in the annual request for proposals will be eliminated from competition and will be returned to the applicant. Proposals whose budgets exceed the maximum allowable amount for a particular program area as announced in the request for proposals may be considered as lying outside the guidelines.
( b ) All applications will be carefully reviewed by the Director, qualified officers or employees of the Department, the respective peer review group, and *ad hoc* reviewers, as required. Written comments will be solicited from *ad hoc* reviewers when required, and individual written comments and in-depth discussions will be provided by peer review group members prior to recommending applications for funding. Applications will be ranked and support levels recommended within the limitation of total available funding for each research program area as announced in the applicable request for proposals.
( c ) No awarding official will make a research project grant based upon an application covered by this part unless the application has been reviewed by a peer review group and/or *ad hoc* reviewers in accordance with the provisions of this part and said reviewers have made recommendations concerning the scientific merit of such application.
( d ) Except to the extent otherwise provided by law, such recommendations are advisory only and are not binding on program officers or on the awarding official.
§ 301.85-5 Compliance agreement and cancellation thereof. ( a ) Any person engaged in the business of growing, handling, or moving regulated articles may enter into a compliance agreement to facilitate the movement of such articles under this subpart. Compliance agreement forms may be obtained from the Deputy Administrator or an inspector.
( b ) Any person engaged in the business of removing soil from Irish potatoes by the process of grading, washing, or fluming may enter into a compliance agreement concerning such operations. The compliance agreement shall be a written agreement between the person conducting such operations and Plant Protection and Quarantine wherein such person agrees to conduct such operations in a manner which, in the judgment of the inspector supervising enforcement of the quarantine and regulations, will substantially remove the soil from the potatoes.
( c ) Any compliance agreement may be canceled by the inspector who is supervising its enforcement whenever the inspector finds, after notice and reasonable opportunity to present views has been accorded to the other party thereto, that such other party has failed to comply with the conditions of the agreement.
[37 FR 24330, Nov. 16, 1972, as amended at 47 FR 12332, Mar. 23, 1982; 70 FR 33268, June 7, 2005]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER BROWN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2764

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 29, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; J. Rogers Padgett, 

Senior Judge.

Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., 

Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01036-MP All Defendants

JAMES R YOUNG,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 159 , Mr. Young’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

In the latest motion, Mr. Young raises the same arguments previously rejected by the order at

Doc. 156. After consideration, the Court concludes that nothing in the motion at Doc. 159

warrants revisiting these issues. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion to reconsider, Doc. 159, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:94-cr-01036-MW-GRJ Document 160 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:92-cr-01047-MP-WCS

JAWARIEL COFFIE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 337, Motion to Reduce Sentence (regarding

Retroactive Application of Sentencing Guidelines to Crack Cocaine Offense 18 U.S.C.A. §

3582) by Jawariel Coffie. The United States has filed a response, Doc. 339. As the government

notes, Mr. Coffie’s motion relies on the policy reasons for the proposal of Amendment 9, a

change to the Sentencing Guidelines which has not yet become law. Mr. Coffie admits that

under current law, his minimum guideline sentence would be life in prison. 

The Motion to Reduce Sentence does not state that Amendment 9 has been adopted,

which would be incorrect. Rather, the motion describes the policy reasons for the proposal of

the amendment, and petitions this Court to apply those same policy considerations to re-sentence

Mr. Coffie below the current guideline minimum of life in prison. As the law cited in the United

States’ response reveals, this Court cannot do so, and therefore must deny relief. 

This Court cannot re-sentence Mr. Coffie below the current guideline range because the

defendant’s original sentence was within the then-applicable guideline range. See U.S. v.

Douglas, 576 F.3d 1216, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). And, although the defendant was
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:92-cr-01047-MP-WCS

originally sentenced before Booker, when the guidelines were mandatory, Booker does not apply

to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) proceedings such as this one. See also U.S. v. Melvin, 556 F3d

1190, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923, 929 (11th Cir. 2009) (stating that,

after Melvin, the argument that a district court should have sentenced the defendant below the

amended guidelines range is “no longer tenable”). So this Court cannot apply Amendment 9,

which is not yet law, and it cannot use the policy reasons behind Amendment 9 to sentence the

defendant below the current guideline range. Motion to Reduce Sentence, Doc. 337, is

DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PATHONI A. BARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:19cv3593-MCR-HTC

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated January 13, 2020. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff has been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United StatesCode, Section 636(b)(1). The Court

has made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation should be

adopted.
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to

prosecute or failure to comply with a Court order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of February 2020.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:19cv3593-MCR-HTC
#### Mandel Cohen, administrator of the estate of Liebie Cohen, deceased, defendant in error, v. Samuel H. Shaykin, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 36,993.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 15, 1934.

John A. Bloomingston, for plaintiff in error. Harry S. Co wen and Charles C. Spencer, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 319.56-6 Trust fund agreements.

If APHIS personnel need to be physically present in an exporting country or region to facilitate the exportation of fruits or vegetables and APHIS services are to be funded by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the exporting country or a private export group, then the NPPO or the private export group must enter into a trust fund agreement with APHIS that is in effect at the time the fruits or vegetables are exported. Under the agreement, the NPPO of the exporting country or the private export group must pay in advance all estimated costs that APHIS expects to incur in providing inspection services in the exporting country. These costs will include administrative expenses incurred in conducting the services and all salaries (including overtime and the Federal share of employee benefits), travel expenses (including per diem expenses), and other incidental expenses incurred by the inspectors in performing services. The agreement must require the NPPO of the exporting country or region or a private export group to deposit a certified or cashier's check with APHIS for the amount of those costs, as estimated by APHIS. The agreement must further specify that, if the deposit is not sufficient to meet all costs incurred by APHIS, the NPPO of the exporting country or a private export group must deposit with APHIS, before the services will be completed, a certified or cashier's check for the amount of the remaining costs, as determined by APHIS. After a final audit at the conclusion of each shipping season, any overpayment of funds would be returned to the NPPO of the exporting country or region or a private export group, or held on account.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs CASE NO: 3:99cr113/LAC

MARVIN BERNARD ROSS,

Defendant.

__________________________________________________/

ORDER REDUCING SENTENCE

Defendant seeks a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2)

claiming that the two level enhancement in Counts 1 and 2 is now prohibited by Amendment

599 to the Sentencing Guidelines (doc 91). This Court agrees and determines that the

defendant’s total offense level as calculated for Counts 1 and 2 is to be reduced to level 38

instead of 40; and therefore, the corrected applicable guideline range for those counts is 292

to 365 months.

Accordingly, defendant’s sentence is reduced on Counts 1 and 2 from 420 months to

the midrange of 328 months to run concurrent one with the other. The previously imposed

84 month consecutive sentence for Count 3 remains in effect resulting in a total sentence of

412 months. All other aspects of the Judgment and Sentence filed 24 May 2000 (doc 77)

shall remain unchanged.

ORDERED this 4th day of May 2005.

 s/L.A. Collier 

 LACEY A. COLLIER

 Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cr-00113-LC-MD Document 96 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1276** 

DIAN C. KISHUN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security; LISA DE SOTO, Deputy Commissioner of Disability Adjudication and Revi ew Board , Defendants

– Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cv
- 00614

- BO )

Submitted : January 25, 2011 Decided: March 14 , 2011

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dian C. Kishun, Appellant Pro Se. Robert K. Crowe, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Astrue.

Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Dian C. Kishun appeals the district court ’ s order granting Astrue’s motion for judgment on the pleadings,
affirming the decision of the administrative law judge, and
denying Kishun’s motion for judgme nt on the pleadings. We have

r eviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kishun

v. Astrue , No. 5:08

- cv
- 00614

- BO (E.D.N.C. Jan

. 13, 2010). 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
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/28121t/00194001.tif
TAGALOG (FOR FILIPINOS) • APRI
5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

145

150

155

159

164

169

174

179

184

189

194

200

205

5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

134

138

142

146

151

155

160

165

169

174

179

184

189

5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

151

156

161

166

171

176

181

186

191

197

202

208

213

NIH Publication No. 04-5524 TAGALOG (FOR FILIPINOS) • APRIL 20

NDEP-74TA
#### § 29.3032 Injury.

Hurt or impairment from any cause except the fungous or bacterial diseases which attack tobacco in its cured state. (See definition of Damage.) Injury to tobacco may be caused by field diseases, insects, or weather conditions; insecticides, fungicides, or cell growth inhibitors; nutritional deficiencies or excesses; or improper fertilizing, harvesting, curing, or handling. Injured tobacco includes dead, burnt, hail-cut, torn, broken, frostbitten, sunburned, sunscalded, scorched, fire-killed, bulk-burnt, steam-burnt, barn-burnt, house-burnt, bleached, bruised, discolored, or deformed leaves; or tobacco affected by wildfire, rust, frog- eye, mosaic, root rot, wilt, black shank, or other diseases. (See Elements of quality and Rule 14.)

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### § 319.75-3 Permits.

A regulated article may be imported only after issuance of a written permit or oral authorization by the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs in accordance with §§ 319.7 through 319.7-5.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049)

[79 FR 19811, Apr. 10, 2014]