alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-50101 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JERRY LEWIS DEDRICK, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:02-CR-113-2

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jerry Lewis Dedrick, federal p ri s o n e r # 27140-180, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal o f the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the d enial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a s entence reduction. He argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under the F air Sentencing Act, t h a t the district court erred in relying solely on Amendments 750 and 7 59 of the Sentencing Guidelines, and that he was wrongly c lassified as a career criminal under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D J uly 9, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-50101 Document: 00512300354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2013No. 13-50101

The district court did not err in determining that Dedrick’s a ppeal would not be i n good faith as he has not identified a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. His guidelines range was not derived from the quantity of cocaine base involved in t he offense, but rather from his career offender status. “The crack c o c a i n e guideline amendments do not apply to prisoners sentenced as career offenders.” United States v. Anderson , 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the district court did not err in d enying Dedrick’s motion for r e consideration of the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. See id. Dedrick has shown n o error in t he district court’s certification d ecision and fails to show that h e w ill raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F .3d 197, 202 ( 5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. K ing , 70 7 F

. 2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, his motion to proceed IFP o n appeal is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as f rivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d a t 202 & n.24; 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

2 Case: 13-50101 Document: 00512300354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2013
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

SIRWAYMAN FOSTER, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-5292 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. )

___________________________________) 

Opinion filed July 15, 2016. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Polk County; Reinaldo Ojeda, Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

 SirWayman Foster appeals the order denying his motion filed under 

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse. 

 In his postconviction motion, Foster alleged that he entered into a plea 

agreement whereby he admitted violating his probation in exchange for a sentence of 

seven years' imprisonment with credit for all previous prison time served on the offenses 

as well as for all jail time served after his arrest. He argued that the Department of 

Corrections' forfeiture of 259 days of his gain time after he was sentenced thwarted the 

intent of his plea agreement that he serve seven years in prison because it resulted in a 

sentence of seven years and 259 days' imprisonment. Foster acknowledged that DOC 

has the authority to revoke gain time without being countermanded by the trial court. 
 -2-

See Dellofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127, 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). However, because 

that forfeiture cannot thwart the terms of a plea agreement, Foster requested that the 

postconviction court resentence him to effectuate the intent of his plea agreement. See 

id. 

 The postconviction court incorrectly found that the transcript of the 

violation of probation hearing directly refuted Foster's claim. The statements the court 

quoted in the order do not refute Foster's claim that DOC thwarted the intent of his plea 

agreement that he serve seven years in prison. See Chase v. State, 57 So. 3d 898, 

899 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reversing an order denying a rule 3.850 motion because it did 

not refute the movant's claim that DOC's forfeiture of his gain time thwarted the intent of 

his plea agreement, noting that "a defendant is entitled to have a plea agreement 

enforced if the Department's forfeiture of gain time thwarted the intent of a negotiated 

plea agreement"); Devoid v. State, 987 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversing 

the denial of a rule 3.850 motion and holding that DOC's revocation of gain time may 

not thwart the terms of a plea agreement and the movant was entitled to be 

resentenced in a manner that would effectuate his plea agreement). Accordingly, we 

reverse and remand for the postconviction court to either attach portions of the record 

refuting Foster's claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. If Foster's claims are correct, the 

postconviction court should resentence him in a manner that effectuates the plea 

agreement after considering the DOC forfeiture of gain time or allow him to withdraw his 

plea. 

 Reversed and remanded. 
 -3-

 NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Fact Sheet

2015 Community Policing Development Program

Community Policing Development (CPD) funds are 

used to advance the practice of community policing in 

law enforcement agencies through training and technical 

assistance and the development of innovative community 

policing strategies, applied research, guidebooks, and best 

practices that are national in scope and responsive to the 

solicitation topic requirements.

COPS Community Policing 

Development Awards 

The 2015 CPD Program funded projects related to a 

number of public safety topic areas, including the following:

 Microgrant Initiative for Law Enforcement 

 Critical Response Technical Assistance

 Community Policing Emerging Issues Forums

 President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing Field 

Initiated Projects

The full listing of awarded projects is located on the COPS 

Office website. 

Funding Provisions

In FY 2015, the COPS Office awarded more than $6 

million under the CPD program.

Provisions include the following:

 The CPD solicitation was open to all public governmental agencies, profit and nonprofit institutions, institutions 

of higher education, community groups, and faith-based 

organizations. Accepted proposals were designed to innovatively advance the field, were cost effective in their 

approach, and demonstrated an understanding of the 

principles of community policing and law enforcement.

 Each grant or cooperative agreement is two years (24 

months) in duration, and there is no local match. Maximum award amounts were specified for each topic area 

and ranged from $75,000 to $1,000,000.

Contact the COPS Office

For more information about the Community Policing 

Development Program, please call the COPS Office 

Response Center at 800-421-6770 or visit the COPS 

Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the 

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services.

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/TaskForce_FinalReport.pdf.

COPS Office Community Policing Development: 

http://cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?item=2450.

2015 COPS Community Policing Development (CPD) Program Award Owner's 

Manual: http://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2015AwardDocs/CPD/2015-CPD-AOM.pdf.

September 2015

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 115 (Friday, June 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35928-35929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14195]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9009-6]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 06/03/2013 through 06/07/2013.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130160, Final EIS, USFS, OR, McKay Fuels and Vegetation 
Management Project, Review Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Marcy 
Anderson 541-416-6463.
EIS No. 20130161, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, East Reservoir Project, Comment 
Period Ends: 07/29/2013, Contact: Denise Beck 406-293-7773, ext. 7504.
EIS No. 20130162, Final EIS, BLM, NM, SunZia Southwest Transmission 
Project, Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments, Review Period 
Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Adrian Garcia 505-954-2199.
EIS No. 20130163, Draft EIS, FERC, AL, Martin Dam Hydroelectric 
Project, Relicensing, Comment Period Ends: 08/13/2013, Contact: Stephen 
Bowler 202-502-6861.
EIS No. 20130164, Revised Draft EIS, USAF, FL, F-35 Beddown at Eglin 
Air Force Base, Comment Period Ends: 07/29/2013, Contact: Mike Spaits 
850-882-2836.
EIS No. 20130165, Draft EIS, BLM, SD, South Dakota Resource Management 
Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/11/2013, Contact: Mitch Iverson 605-892-
7008.
EIS No. 20130166, Final EIS, USFWS, NiSource Multi-Species Habitat 
Conservation Plan, Review Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: Thomas J. 
Magnuson 612-713-5467.
EIS No. 20130167, Draft EIS, NOAA, MI, Thunder Bay National Marine 
Sanctuary, Boundary Expansion, Comment Period Ends: 08/14/2013, 
Contact: Jeff Gray 989-356-8805.
EIS No. 20130168, Final EIS, USACE, CA, Feather River West Levee 
Project Final 408 Permission, Review Period Ends: 07/15/2013, Contact: 
Jeffery Koschak 916-557-6994.
EIS No. 20130169, Final Supplement, NRC, TN, Operation of Watts Bar 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, Review Period Ends:

[[Page 35929]]

07/15/2013, Contact: Elaine Keegan 301-415-8517.
EIS No. 20130170, Draft Supplement, USACE, CA, Sutter Basin Pilot Draft 
Feasibility Study, Comment Period Ends: 07/29/2013, Contact: Brad 
Johnson 916-557-7812.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130159, Final Supplement, USACE, IN, Indianapolis North Flood 
Damage Reduction Project, Review Period Ends: 07/08/2013, Contact: 
Keith Keeney 502-315-6885. Revision to FR Notice Published 06/07/2013; 
Change Agency Contact and Phone Number to Keith Keeney (502) 315-6885.

    Dated: June 11, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-14195 Filed 6-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### § 95.2301 Scope.

This subpart contains rules that apply only to the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS) operating in the 608-614 MHz, 1395-1400 MHz and 1427-1432 MHz frequency bands.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


     <ARTICLE> 5

     <MULTIPLIER> 1



     <S>                                     <C>
     <PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996

     <PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR

     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996

     <CASH>                                          26,104

     <SECURITIES>                                         0

     <RECEIVABLES>                                   40,331

     <ALLOWANCES>                                         0

     <INVENTORY>                                          0

     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,435

     <PP&E>                                       6,015,843

     <DEPRECIATION>                               1,657,420

     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,474,386

     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,248

     <BONDS>                                      3,362,229

     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0

     <PREFERRED>                                          0

     <COMMON>                                        57,503

     <OTHER-SE>                                     953,406

     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,474,386

     <SALES>                                        196,647

     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,647

     <CGS>                                                0

     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                  584,715

     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                               331,248

     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,150

     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             342,934

     <INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,070,400)

     <INCOME-TAX>                                         0

     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0

     <DISCONTINUED>                                       0

     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0

     <CHANGES>                                            0

     <NET-INCOME>                                (1,070,400)

     <EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.22)

     <EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.22)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Aug-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                Sep-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Aug-31-1998
<CASH>                        1,403
<SECURITIES>                  8,408,801
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              8,515,204
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                8,515,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         174,496
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   1
<COMMON>                      10,560
<OTHER-SE>                    6,586,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  8,515,204
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              411,393
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              133,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               0
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  213,304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.00
        



</TABLE>
Presidential Documents

53543 

Federal Register 

Vol. 71, No. 176 

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2006–22 of August 28, 2006 

Transfers of Defense Articles and Services in Support of 

Sudan Security Sector Transformation (SST) Program 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of 

the United States, including section 40(g) of the Arms Export Control Act 

(AECA), I hereby: 

• Determine that the transaction, encompassing transfers of defense 

articles and services, funded by United States Government assistance, necessary for an SST program for the Government of Southern Sudan that will support transformation of the Sudan People’s 

Liberation Army from a guerrilla force into a smaller, conventional 

force is essential to the national security interests of the United 

States. Such transfers include the provision of vehicles and communications equipment; power generation; facilities construction/ 

renovation; training and technical assistance; recommendations for 

force structure, training, equipment, infrastructure, and resource 

management; and other defense articles and services in support of 

military reform in Southern Sudan, including support to the Sudan 

People’s Liberation Movement; 

• Waive the prohibitions in section 40 of the AECA related to such 

transaction; and 

• Assign to you the functions under section 40(g)(2) of the AECA 

to consult with and submit reports to the Congress for proposed 

specific exports or transfers, 15 days prior to permitting them to 

proceed, that are necessary for and within the scope of this determination and the transaction referred to herein. 

You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress 

and to arrange for its publication in the 

W 

Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 28, 2006. 

[FR Doc. 06–7616 

Filed 9–11–06; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PREDOCS
1 

### Damberg, Rich

From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 4:21 PM

To: Damberg, Rich

Subject: FW: PM2.5 NAAQS SIP PR - additional interagency comments

Incoming #5

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541

‐ 2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov

From: Szabo, Aaron [mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:57 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan

Subject: PM2.5 NAAQS SIP PR

‐ additional interagency comments

Based on our teleconference, below is the initial version of the interagency language that will be made more generic

based on the interagency teleconference.

“EPA realizes the current uncertainties related to the ammonia emissions inventory may lead to mitigation or control

strategies being included in SIP updates required by this rule that may later need to be revisited as a better

understanding of ammonia emissions, especially from agricultural sources, is developed.”

Aaron L. Szabo

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

202

‐ 395

‐ 3621

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
Amendment to Petition for Relief from SFAR 108

On April 13, 2015 SimCom Aviation Training, formerly known as SimCom Training 

Centers, (“SimCom”) petitioned the FAA pursuant to FAR §11.25 for relief from certain 

requirements of SFAR 108, 5.(4)(b)(3)(ii) (the “SFAR”). Specifically, SimCom seeks 

relief from the SFAR’s requirement that an MU-2 simulator instructor must have 50 

hours of pilot-in-command experience or 50 hours providing simulator or flight training 

device instruction for the MU-2 within the preceding twelve month period. SimCom’s 

petition proposes to substitute the foregoing requirement of the SFAR with a requirement 

for 50 hours of supervised instruction by a qualified MU-2 instructor, all as further set 

forth in SimCom’s original petition and subsequent amendment to its petition. SimCom 

now wishes to further amend its petition with supplementary information as to why the 

FAA’s granting SimCom’s petition would (i) be in the public interest and (ii) would not 

adversely affect safety.

SimCom respectfully submits that granting this exemption would be in the public interest 

and would in fact enhance aviation safety. SimCom is the only provider of MU-2 

simulator training in the world, but is experiencing increasing difficulty in identifying 

and retaining MU-2 simulator instructors because of the dwindling MU-2 aircraft fleet 

and MU-2 pilot pool. The requirements of the SFAR from which SimCom seeks relief 

exacerbate this difficulty and consequently will adversely affect the ready availability of 

timely and cost effective simulator based training for all MU-2 pilots. In short, SimCom’s 

submits that it is an important public interest consideration that FAA regulations do not 

inadvertently limit the availability such training. 

The alternative 50 hours of supervised instruction proposed by SimCom in its petition 

will aid SimCom in maintaining a sufficient pool of MU-2 simulator instructors and, 

consequently, will ensure the ongoing availability of simulator based training for MU-2 

pilots. SimCom’s proposed alternative will also have no adverse effect on aviation or 

public safety—all new instructors will still be required to complete the same amount of 

hours (50 hours) as required by the SFAR, except that these hours may be accrued as 

received instruction from a previously qualified MU-2 instructor. Instructors will still be 

required to meet all other requirements of the SFAR. In short, the proposal described in 

SimCom’s petition will ensure the fullest safety equivalency to those requirements of the 

SFAR from which SimCom seeks relief. Finally, as noted in the petition, the current 

requirements of the SFAR are unique in the industry, whereas SimCom’s proposed 

alternative to the requirements of the SFAR would establish instructor qualification 

standards no less stringent than the requirements the FAA has historically deemed 

acceptable and conducive to aviation safety for numerous other aircraft types.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FILED
AS PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      17,286,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,290,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,032,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,125,000
<PP&E>                                      17,040,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (13,039,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,251,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       37,777,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,445,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (160,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,360,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            93,522,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            90,657,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,708,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,157,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   582,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            575,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   575,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>