alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 60455 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,** 
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Ronnie Thomas,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 15

- 1

**______________________________** Before **Wiener** , **Elrod** , and **Engelhardt** , Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam** : *****
Defendant

- Appellant Ronnie Thomas ple aded guilty to one count of distribution of cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender to 151 months in prison, the bottom of the guidelines range. On appeal , he challeng es the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Thomas contends that his

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 14, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-60455 Document: 00516676815 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2023No. 22

- 60455

2 sentence i s substantively unreasonable because the district court afforded insufficient credit to mitigating factors that he specifies

. We **AFFIRM**

. We review t he substantive reasonableness of a district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion . We give great deference to the sentence imposed by the district court and its weighi ng of the sentencing factors. United States v. Simpson , 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015). Because Thomas’ s sentence was within the guideline range, it is presumed to be reasonable. See i d. He can only rebut this presumption “by demonstrating that the sentence: (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgm ent in balancing the sentencing factors.” Id. at 558 (internal quotations omitted)

. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness . The district court considered Thomas ’s and the Government ’s con tentions and concluded that a sentence at the bottom of the range was appropriate. Further, Thomas’ s disagreement with the policy of the career

- offender provision of the U.S. Sentencing Guideline s is not s ufficient to make his sentence unreasonable. See Un ited States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 356

– 67 (5th Cir. 2009).
We **AFFIRM**

. Case: 22-60455 Document: 00516676815 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2023
STANDARD FORM NO. 64 

fi3cffldf522792 

Office Memorandum • UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

TO 

FROM 

SUBJECT: 

.AFSA-00 

Pren.ch insecurity. 

00.E Iten !io. 110 

DATE· 17 Jan 1951 

In regard to problem of French inaecuri ty 1 it is SU€;ge&ted that cor..aidera.-

tion be given to an approach along the line& of exchange of' inf'ormation on 

general coJ1111unication sec:uri ty practices, most ot which we have already decla81itied. We could do this ostensibly fOI' the purpose of a.rriv-lng at 

standard practices +elimJ.nary to active cooperation. In this way we 

could. get ao:me actual measure of French aecuri ty knowl.edge and procedures. 

We coul.cl also attack the problem, initially, at the veake•t point. With 

tbe knowledge thue gained, ve would bt :in a bet·i;er poai tion to determine what. 

further action _.- be required. 

~ J. N. WENG.m 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-11-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352a
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-061-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
·: .... · 

• REF· ID:A4163JOP SECHEl'1 

. NAVSECUR 1 lYST ~ WASH DC d_O/ 

FROM: 

TO: 

SUSLO LONDON ¢11¢30Z 

USCIB COORDINATOR 

T 0 P S E 0 R E T 

REUR 302046Z JULY . 

. 2 /\UC 51/RCS I~ 

DEFERRED 

.S-348~8 

(FIRST SUBJECT) o · CPB HAS RECEIVED NO DIRECT REQUESTS . 

FROM NATO f,1PmEH NATIONS FOR r:AEMO REFERRED TOo 

INFORMATION IS CO NT A UJED IN APPENDIX TO U I NUTES OFTH I RD MEETHJG OF TR.I-REGIONAL CIPHER COMMITTEEo ALSO,, 

MATER I-AL HAS BEEN TURNED OVER TO CECSo SEE CAPTAIN 

TAYLOR~ USN» FOR DETAILSo 

NAVSECURITYSTA ROUTING: 

ACTION: . APSA-12300000 

J\FSA-131., o o .. o 

PARAPHRASE- NOT REQU t RED., CONSULT CRYPTOCENTER BEFORE DECLASSIFYINGo 

011¢3¢z ·A ur~ 

TOP SECREl 

0-ec-la-ss-if-i e-d -an_d_a-pp-r-ov-ed-f-or-r-el-ea_s_e -by_N_S_A_o_n -12---19--2-0-14-pu-rs ...... u-an-t -to-E-.0--. _....13 ...... 5-2{3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release Nos. 33-9713A; 34-74158A, File No. 265-27]

# AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

# ACTION:

Amended Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of a change in a meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies. The meeting was originally noticed for February 17, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. EST, as published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 2, 2015, 80 FR 5592. The agenda item for the meeting was consideration of recommendations to the Commission regarding the definition of “accredited investor.” However, due to snow, the Federal government in Washington, DC was closed on February 17, 2015, and therefore the meeting was postponed. The “accredited investor” recommendations will now be considered at the Advisory Committee's March 4, 2015 meeting, 9:30 a.m. EST, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC, which was previously published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 17, 2015, 80 FR 8374.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Julie Z. Davis, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3460, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

Dated: February 20, 2015.

Brent J. Fields,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-03946 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
.. •

- - _.REE_ ;IP ;..&,7.h?J. ~ __.._ EXE IV~ OFF!-- -· .. ·- . RESl~T 

--NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL "" TOP SECfitT 

WASHINGTON 

February 10, 1953 

lTEP.DRAIIDuti FOR r.m. FRIEDH.llN: 

At your request, I am transmitting here1dth an 

extra copy of the President's directive on COliiSEC matters~ 

appr0ve~ on October 24, 1952. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 01-31-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
• • 

e *"' • TOP Sf Cfil:T • .... lff ... li,IJI 

REF ID:A72217 

C O PI COPY l:J. _L 

lilEMCfiAlfDUM Fllh The Secretary of State 

fhe Secretarr of Defense 

SUBJECT: Communications Security (COOEC) Matters 

Tne security ot classified Federal telecommunications 

(CCllSEC) is a national responsibility. COOEC policies and 

procedure• must be integrated s-0 aa to enable the various 

departments and agencies of the Government to cooperate effectively in such matters and to satisfy legit1119.te requlrements tor tLe aecurity of their claasif1ed messages. 

I therefore designate the Secretaries of State and Defense 

a1 a 8 pecial Comai ttee of the Ha tional Security Council .ror 

CCMSBC matters, to eatablish auch policies relating to COO.BC 

aa will achieve the maximum aecurity of classified Federal tel-

•C01111UD.1ca t1on• and to keep me advised or 1uch policies through the Xxeeutive Secretary of the National Security Council. 

In tl:ie CCEEC field, I direct the Special Committee of tne 

.NSC to prepare and 1asua directives which will: 

l. Reacind the Executive Ol'cler of 3 July 1945' entitled •cryptegraphic Security With Bespect to Certain 

Communications of the Government". 

2. Establish a United States Communications Securit;-,- Board (USCS~) reaponsible for integrating policies and pro- cedures affecting the security of classified Federal telecommunications. 

3. Provide ror the establishment of appropriate responsibilitl.es and authorities to as•ure within the Executive Branen, among other things: 

(a) High and uniform standards of communication 

security. 

(b) Effective cooper;;.tion in COOEC matters between departments an4 agencies concerned. 

(c) The adequacy ot the cryptographic a1stems 

used. 

__ (d) Coord1natio~~ of C<>JSEC problems, particu- lo.rly policies Wl.tl1 respect to .f oreig:n governments. 

\ 
• REF ID:A72217 ' - 2 -

(e) Satisfaction or legitimate requirements 

tor the security o:f cl~ssified telecOU1munlcationa. 

(Signed) HARRY S. TRUMAl~
#### The State, Respondent, vs. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Appellant.

*April 12*

June *20, 1907.*

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Dane county: Wab-een D. Tabrant, Judge.

*Reversed.*

*C. H. Tan Alstine,*for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *A. 0. Titus,*assistant, attorney general, and *L. M. Sturdevant,*of counsel, and oral argument by the *Attorney General*and *Mr. Sturdevant.*

Siebeckeb, J.

The questions presented on this appeal are identical with those presented in *State v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., ante,*p. 345, *365112 N. *W.*515. Suck being tbe fact, tbis case is ruled in every particular by that one.

In that case the order appealed from was reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to the lower court to sustain the demurrer as to the causes of action which accrued prior to February 4, 1899, and to overrule the demurrer as to the causes of action which accrued after that date. The same order should be made in the instant case.

*By the Court.*— It is so ordered.
# CE2004084EN.01065302.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/653 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/653

---

(2004/C 84 E/0737)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0680/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Bushmeat — disease transmission

Subject:

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, what action has the Commission taken to conduct a risk assessment of the potential for disease transmission to humans from illegal bushmeat imports into the European Union?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0679/04 and E-0680/04

given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

(6 April 2004)

Member States are required to maintain and enforce strict controls on imports of animal products, including personal imports, to avert both animal health and public health risks. The Commission recognises that a big risk factor is the importation of bush meat carried by passengers for their personal consumption.

To strengthen controls for animal products carried by passengers for their personal consumption including for all illegal importations, the Commission recently adopted Commission Decision 2002/995/EC (1). This lays down rules which prevent, with limited exemptions, the import of all personal consignments of meat and milk into the EU, and includes the provision for Member States to implement controls on passengers at all EU passenger entry points from third countries.

1

A free multi-language poster was also developed and distributed for use in airports to improve awareness of the public to the tightened rules for products of animal origin accompanying passengers in their personal luggage. The Commission has also prepared and sent out a follow-up questionnaire to Member States on the results of these new controls in order to gain feed-back from the Member States on this problem.

Building on the information gained from the questionnaire and also from working groups with Member States experts, the Commission intends to adopt shortly a Regulation to replace Commission Decision 2002/995/EC with the aim to improve and tighten controls.

The Regulation will not only strengthen existing rules but give the Member States greater scope to improve enforcement, and explicitly penalise those passengers that are found to be in breach of the rules.

To complement these actions, the Food and Veterinary Office are also proposing to carry out a mission to several Member States soon to look at the effectiveness of the application by the Member States of the controls laid down in Community legislation, including the problem of illegal imports.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2002/995/EC of 9 December 2002 laying down interim safeguard measures with regard to imports of products of animal origin for personal consumption, OJ L 353, 30.12.2002.

1

---
p130374.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0374 Focus Ready Draft 4/22/2013 ENGINEER: Jon \ REC PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER: The Dow Chemical Company

Page 1p130374.eng SAT (concerns) (04/16/2013): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox: Analogs: Migration to groundwater: Moderate to Rapid PBT rating: P2B1T2 . Health: 1-2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation, XB Testing (No Testing desired) Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 180 ppb), XB Testing (Testing desired)
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3B
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0374 Manufacturing: Number of Sites/ Location: 1 Dow - Midland Midland MI 48667 Days/yr: 220

Page 2p130374.eng

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.

Page 3p130374.eng

Page 4p130374.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0374

Use: Number of Sites/ Location: 1 Dow - Midland Midland MI 48667 Days/yr: 130

Page 5p130374.eng

Page 6
First Amendment To Severance Agreement


 Exhibit 10.2 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) effective
as of September 19, 2008 to the Severance Agreement, dated as of April 6, 2007 (the “Agreement”), between Nobel Learning Communities, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (“Nobel Learning”), and Thomas Frank (Executive”).

 Background 
 Executive
is a member of Nobel Learning’s senior leadership team and is expected to be actively involved in executing Nobel Learning’s plans for continued growth and success. 
 In an effort to acknowledge Executive’s important role in this process and to provide Executive with a degree of income and benefit protection in
the event [his/her] employment is terminated, Executive and Nobel Learning entered into the Agreement. 
 Executive and Nobel Learning are
amending the Agreement to conform the Agreement to the original intent of the parties. 
 All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning set forth in the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and promises
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, Nobel Learning and Executive hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3(i)
of the Agreement, “Limitation on Benefits Contingent Upon Change in Control,” is hereby deleted in its entirety. 
 2. All of the
other terms and conditions of the Agreement, not inconsistent with the terms of this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment the date and year first written above. 
  

			
	NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, INC.
		
	By	 	 /s/ George Bernstein

	Name:	 	George Bernstein
	Title:	 	President and CEO
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Thomas Frank

	Print Name: Thomas Frank
National Reconnaissance Office Satellite 

Successfully Launched

29 January 1998

CAPE CANAVERAL AIR STATION, Fla. --

A National Reconnaissance Office satellite was successfully launched aboard an Atlas IIA rocket 

from Space Launch Complex 36 here at 1:37 p.m. Eastern Standard Time today. The NRO, 

which designed and built the satellite, will also operate it. The launch was a team effort between 

the NRO, the Cape's 3rd Space Launch Squadron, Space and Missile Systems Center at Los 

Angeles AFB, Calif. and the Lockheed Martin Astronautics Corporation. "The Atlas team did an 

outstanding job," said Brig. Gen. Randall Starbuck, commander of the 45th Space Wing at 

Patrick AFB, which is responsible for launches from Cape Canaveral AS. "We continue to 

maintain assured access to space with each national defense launch.
# CE2004084EN.01077301.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/773 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/773

---

(2004/C 84 E/0869)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/04

by Marco Cappato (NI), Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI) and Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Chinese New Year parade in Paris

Subject:

On the occasion of the Chinese New Year parade in Paris, held on 24 January 2004, the mayor of the city and its police bureau refused to allow the French Falun Gong Association to take part in the parade.

The French Falun Gong Association asked to take part in the parade with performances of the Lion Dance, Chinese drummers, traditional dancing and decorated floats. Less than a week before the event, the City Hall refused the application due to bureaucratic problems linked to the registration date. The truth is that the documents were sent on time, back in October. Moreover, the French Falun Gong Association was not given authorisations for other activities during the festivity it had applied for, such as performing traditional Falun Gong exercises, and handing out information.

It seems that the Chinese Embassy threatened to cancel all of the festivities if the City of Paris allowed Falun Gong to participate. Other non-official voices, which the Chinese authorities have repressed, have also met with similar obstacles.

Is the Commission aware of the facts of what happened in Paris last week?

What does the Commission intend to do in order to avoid similar cases occurring again on EU territory?

Does the Commission intend to speak to the French Government, the City Hall of Paris and the Chinese Ambassadors to France and the EU, in order to remind them that freedom of expression and demonstration are basic human rights clearly protected by Article 6 of the TEU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

(6 April 2004)

The EC Treaty and the Treaty on European Union do not confer on the Community any general powers as regards fundamental rights. The Commission is entitled to act only where such rights have been violated in the course of applying Community law, which is not the case with the events referred to by the Honourable Members.

As a general point, the Commission would like to stress that it regularly brings up the cases of individual Falun Gong members whose fundamental rights have not been respected as a result of their belonging to that organisation as part of the EU-China dialogue on human rights, most recently at the session held in Dublin on 26/27 February 2004.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBSIDIARY                         LOCATION          BUSINESS         DATE        % OWNED

<S>                             <C>               <C>                               <C>
Research Engineers, Europe Ltd. Bristol, UK       Software Sales  1986              100%
Research Engineers, Pvt. Ltd.   Calcutta, India   Software Sales  1986              100%
Research Engineers, GmbH        Herne, Germany    Software Sales  November, 1995*   100%
Research Engineers, SARL        Dourdan, France   Software Sales  October, 1998     100%
Research Engineers
   International Pte. Ltd.      Singapore         Software Sales  April, 2001       100%
R-Cube Technologies, Inc.       Yorba Linda, CA   IT Services     February, 1999*   100%
PacSoft Incorporated            Woodinville, WA   Software Sales  March, 1999*      100%
NetGuru Systems, Inc.           Waltham, MA       IT Services     September, 1999*  100%
NetGuru Consulting, Inc.        Waltham, MA       IT Services     September, 1999*  100%
Allegria Software, Inc.         Yorba Linda, CA   Software Sales  April, 2000*      100%
NetGuru India Pvt. Ltd.         Calcutta, India   e-commerce      May, 2000*        100%
----------------------------------
* Acquired; balance of subsidiaries were created.
</TABLE>
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A199
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1624

THINEMAR SWAYZER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (99-1407-A) Submitted: November 27, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Endicott, Jr., Harker Heights, Texas, for Appellant.Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, Dennis E. Szybala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thinemar Swayzer appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinionand find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Swayzer v. United States Dep’t of Defense , No. 99-1407-A (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 6, 2001; entered Mar. 7, 2001). 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