alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Will Otis POPE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. KK-216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 23, 1979.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Pope appeals from his conviction of burglary and grand larceny with sentence imposed of five years and three years probation, respectively. As a condition of probation, the appellant, previously adjudicated insolvent, was required to pay restitution, court costs, and police academy costs. This action was proper. *Arnold v. State,*356 So.2d 862 at 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Appellant also alleges that he was not provided notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the amount of restitution in accordance with *Fresneda v. State,*347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977). However, appellant and his counsel were present when restitution was imposed but they failed to object or otherwise present the issue to the trial court. As a consequence, it is impossible to determine from the record that notice was not given. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 16, 2009 ∗

Decided October 23, 2009



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

K ENNETH F. R IPPLE

, Circuit Judge

T ERENCE T. E VANS

, Circ uit Judge



### No

. 09

- 1514

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

E DDIE D. G REGORY

, Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division

.

No. 1:93

- CR

- 00148

- 15 Larry J. McKinney

, Judge

.

Order

Eddie D. Gregory is se rving a sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment for crack

cocaine offenses. After the Sentencing Commission reduced the Guideline ranges for
such crimes, and made the reductions retroactive, Gregory filed a motion under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) asking for a lower sentence. The district court denied that motion; Gregory appeals. The appeal was received after the 10 days allowed, but the prison

mailbox rule makes it timely.

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to th e original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To b e cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 09

- 1514 Page 2

Gregory’ s sentence is within the rang e of 360 months to life that was prescribed for his offense level of 42 and his criminal history category of VI. The retroactive change to the Guidelines reduced the offense level from 42 to 40. The range for level 40

likewise is 360 months to life. Sectio n 3583(c)(2) allows the district judge to change a sentence only when the revised guideline lowers the sentencing range. The district court rightly concluded that this had not occurred for Gregory, making him ineligible.

Gregory’ s brief does not disagree with this understanding. Instead he contends that he should receive a complete resentencing, at which he would argue that criminal history category VI overstates the seriousness of his record and that he should receive a

lower sentence under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and its successors. But
§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a ful l resentencing. See United States v. Cunningham , 554 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2009). The original offense

- level and criminal

- history calculations must

be taken as establ ished; the question under the statute is whether a change in the Guidelines affects the resulting range. Th e change did not affect Gregory’ s range, so the statute does not authorize resentencing.

A FFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22795]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2009-OS-0136]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete systems of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Intelligence Agency is deleting a system of 
records notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
October 22, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a 
contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: DIA Privacy Act Coordinator, Records Management Section, 200 
McDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Theresa Lowery at (202) 231-1193.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Intelligence Agency systems of 
records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available 
from the address above.
    The Defense Intelligence Agency is proposing to delete a system of 
records notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. This proposed 
deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act 
of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of 
a new or altered system report.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
LDIA 0008

SYSTEM NAME:
    Vehicle Registration Information (June 5, 1993, 71 FR 32320).

REASON:
    The records contained in this system are maintained in F031 AF SP K 
Vehicle Administrative Records. DIA is a tenant organization on Bolling 
Air Force Base. DoD decals are maintained by the Chief of Security 
Police on Bolling and subsequently issued to agency for distribution.
[FR Doc. E9-22795 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*VINCENT WHITELY

*James B. Streeto,*in support of the petition.

*Susan C. Marks,*supervisory assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 27, 1997

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 16546) is denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41613 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BENJAMIN GONZALEZ-ALANIS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-863-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Benjamin Gonzalez-Alanis (“Gonzalez”) appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after commission of an aggravated felony. He argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which was used to enhance his sentence based on his prior aggravated felony conviction, is unconstitutional. Gonzalez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), butNo. 02-41613 -2- asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Gonzalez further argues that a conflict exists between the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment because the written judgment contains a condition of supervised release prohibiting the possession of a dangerous weapon while the court did not mention this prohibition at the sentencing hearing. His argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Torres-Aguilar , 352 F.3d 934, 937-38 (5th Cir. 2003). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22849]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (09-081)]


Privacy Act of 1974; Privacy Act System of Records

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of the retirement of one Privacy Act system of records 
notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, NASA is giving 
notice that it proposes to retire the following Privacy Act system of 
records notice, Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Training Certification 
System (YC-04)/KSC 76STCS (October 1, 2007, 72 FR 55832) from its 
inventory of record systems and rely upon the Government-wide system of 
records notice issued by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM/Govt-1 
General Personnel Records (June 19, 2006, 71 FR 35342), which is 
written to cover all Federal government training and certification 
records.

DATES: These changes will take effect 30 calendar days from the date of 
this publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patti F. Stockman, Privacy Act 
Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001, (202) 
358-4787, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#256b6476640875646a43434c464057654b4456440b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d636c7e6c007d6c624b4b444e485f6d434c5e4c034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 
552a, and as part of ongoing integration and management efforts, NASA 
is retiring the system of records notice, Kennedy Space Center Shuttle 
Training Certification System (YC-04)/KSC 76STCS (October 1, 2007, 72 
FR 55832).
    NASA will continue to collect and maintain records regarding 
individuals who are trained and certified to safely perform hazardous 
work and will rely upon the existing Federal Government-wide system of 
records notice titled OPM/GOVT-1 General Personnel Records (June 19, 
2006, 71 FR 35342), which is written to cover all Federal training and 
certification record systems. Eliminating this notice will have no 
adverse impacts on individuals, but will promote the overall 
streamlining and management of NASA Privacy Act record systems.

Bobby L. German,
Acting NASA Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-22849 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
HomeKey Topics – Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization...Procurement Forecast

# 									Procurement Forecast							

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Public Law 100-656, the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988, amended the Small Business Act to place new emphasis on acquisition planning. The law requires agencies to compile and make available projections of contracting opportunities small and small disadvantaged firms may be able to perform.

In response to this requirement, the Department of State Forecast of Contract Opportunities includes projections of anticipated contract above the simplified acquisition threshold that small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses may be able to perform under direct contracts with the Government, or through subcontracting opportunities. This Department-wide forecast of contract opportunities expands upon individual efforts already implemented at Department of State aimed at enhancing competition in contracting. The forecast consolidates anticipated procurements at various State Department acquisition activities.

The Forecast of Contract Opportunities is updated annually, in the first quarter of the fiscal year.

Department of State Procurement Forecast Fiscal Year 2024 (Revised 11/2/2023)

Department of State Procurement Forecast Fiscal Year 2023 (Revised 01/09/2023)

Department of State Procurement Forecast Fiscal Year 2022 (Revised 03/30/2022)

Department of State Procurement Forecast Fiscal Year 2021

Department of State Procurement Forecast Fiscal Year 2020

Department of State Procurement Forecast Fiscal Year 2019

**Bureau Names and Acronyms List**

Tags

BusinessContracting OpportunitiesOffice of Small and Disadvantaged Business UtilizationSmall and Disadvantaged BusinessState Department At Work

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Palau National Day

# 									Palau National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 30, 2021

On behalf of the United States of America, I extend the warmest congratulations to the people of Palau on the occasion of your National Day on October 1.

The Republic of Palau and the United States have enjoyed longstanding friendship and valuable cooperation.Through the Compact of Free Association, our countries share a special bond that has stood the test of time.We share common values, and together we have worked to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific. 

The United States is committed to working with Palau as it continues to build a vibrant, prosperous, democratic society based on its proud traditions and the rule of law.We also commend Palau for its focus on tackling the ocean and climate crises, and we look forward to partnering on the seventh Our Ocean Conference in Koror in February 2022.

Congratulations and warmest wishes for peace and prosperity in the year to come.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonPalauThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
AFF IRMED; Opinion Filed February 25 , 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 1 3
- 0 1659
- CR No. 05
- 13
- 01660
- CR
CHRISTOPHER EUGENE A DDISON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial Dis tri ct Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 0 6
- 63021
- Q, F12
- 71987
- Q 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, and Schenck Opinion b y Justice Lang Christopher Eugene Addison appeals his convictions, following the adjudication of hi s guilt , for robbery and assault involving family violence

. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2) , 29.02(a) (West 2011); T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. §§ 71.0021, 71.005 (West 2008 & Supp. 2014). The trial court assessed punishment at five years’ impriso nment for the robbery and one year ’ s confinement in the county jail for the assault. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which s he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. Ca lifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable- 2

- grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313,
319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases)

. We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothi ng in the record that might arguably support the appeal s . We affirm the trial court’s judgment s .

/ Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 131659F.U05- 3

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER EUGENE A DDISON , Appellant No. 05

- 1 3

- 01659

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F06

- 63021

- Q ). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang , Justices Stoddart and S chenck participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.
Judgment entered February 25 , 2015.- 4

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER EUGENE A DDISON , Appellant No. 05

- 1 3

- 01660

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12

- 71987

- Q ). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang , Justices Stoddart and Schenck participating.

Based on the Co urt’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.
Judgment entered February 2 5 , 2015.
§ 85.11 Notification of determination to employers, affected employees and Department of Labor. ( a ) Upon conclusion of an investigation, NIOSH will make a determination concerning the potentially toxic or hazardous effects of each substance or physical agent investigated as a result of the request for health hazard evaluation. At a minimum, the determination will: ( 1 ) Identify each substance or physical agent involved and describe, where appropriate, the concentrations or levels of the substance or physical agent found in the place of employment and the conditions of use, and
( 2 ) state whether each substance or physical agent has potentially toxic or hazardous effects in the concentrations or levels found, as well as the basis for the judgments.
( b ) Copies of the determination will be mailed to the employer and to the authorized representatives of employees.
( c ) Except as hereinafter provided, the employer shall post a copy of the determination for a period of 30 calendar days at or near the workplace(s) of affected employees. The employer shall take steps to insure that the posted determinations are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material during such period. The employer will not be required to post the determination if the employer requests that copies of the determination be mailed to affected employees and furnishes NIOSH with a list of the names and mailing addresses of the employees employed in the workplace(s) designated by the NIOSH Officer. In the latter event, NIOSH will mail such copies to affected employees at the mailing addresses provided by the employer.
( d ) For purposes of this section, the term “affected employees” means those employees determined by NIOSH to be exposed to the substance(s) or physical agent(s) which is the subject of the health hazard evaluation.
( e ) Copies of determinations made under the OSH Act will be forwarded to the Department of Labor and the appropriate State agency designated under section 18(b) of the OSH Act. Copies of determinations made under the FMSH Act will be forwarded to the Mine Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor; the Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior; and the State agency which, in the judgment of NIOSH, would benefit the most from the information. If NIOSH determines that any substance or physical agent has potentially toxic or hazardous effects at the concentrations or levels at which it is used or found in a place of employment, and the substance or physical agent is not covered by a safety or health standard established under section 6 of the OSH Act or section 101 of the FMSH Act, NIOSH will immediately submit the determination to the Secretary of Labor, together with all pertinent criteria.
[37 FR 23640, Nov. 7, 1972, as amended at 45 FR 2653, Jan. 14, 1980]
§ 51b.106 What other conditions apply to these grants? ( a ) The notice of grant award specifies how long HHS intends to support the project without requiring the project to recompete for funds. This period, called the project period, will usually be for 2 to 5 years.
( b ) For budgetary and funding purposes, the project period is generally divided into 12-month intervals called budget periods. A grantee must submit a separate application to have the support continued for each subsequent budget period after the initial award. Decisions regarding continuation awards and the funding level of such awards will be made after consideration of such factors as the grantee's progress and management practices and the availability of funds. In all cases, continuation awards require a determination by HHS that continued funding is in the best interest of the government.
( c ) Neither the approval of any application nor the award of any grant commits or obligates the United States in any way to make any additional, supplemental, continuation, or other award with respect to any approved application or portion of an approved application.
( d ) Any funds granted pursuant to this subpart shall be expended solely for the purposes for which the funds were granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations of this part, the terms and conditions of the award, and the applicable cost principles prescribed in 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.
( e ) The Secretary may, at the time of award, impose additional conditions, including conditions governing the use of information or consent forms, when, in the Secretary's judgment, they are necessary to advance the approved program, the interest of the public health, or the conservation of grant funds.
[48 FR 4473, Feb. 1, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 3007, Jan. 20, 2016]
#### § 65.9 Additional conditions.

The Director may with respect to any award impose additional conditions prior to, or at the time of, any award when, in the Director's judgment, such conditions are necessary to assure the carrying out of the purposes of the award, the interest of the public health, or the conservation of funds awarded.