alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Len Arthur BRACEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60095 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED October 5, 2017

Glenda Ruth Haynes, Esq., Gregory Layne Kennedy, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael L. Scott, Esq., Thomas Creagher Turner, Jr., Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Len Arthur Bracey, Jr., appeals his above-guidelines sentence of 96 months of imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends that his sentence was proeedurally and substantively unreasonable. This court ordinarily reviews the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Bracey’s arguments are unavailing under this standard.

The district court adequately explained Bracey’s sentence. Significant procedural errors include “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Here, the district court provided a sufficient, and rather lengthy, explanation for its above-guidelines sentence, which it explicitly based on various specific § 3553(a) factors. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Pillault,*783 F.3d 282, 286, 289-90 (5th Cir. 2015); *United States v. Fraga,*704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2013).

As for substantive reasonableness, a non-Guidelines sentence fails to comport with § 3553(a) where it “(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 judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” *United States v. Diehl,*775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). Bracey essentially asks that this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which is not within the scope of this court’s review, *see Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. There is no merit to Bracey’s argument that the court overemphasized his criminal history and the nature and circumstances of his offense because the court was entitled to place appropriate weight on those sentencing factors. *See Pillault,*783 F.3d at 288-89; *United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Finally, although Bra-cey contends that the district court improperly relied upon his personal charac-. teristics and behavior, the district court’s *229statements at sentencing refute that the court placed significant weight on any arguably improper factor. *Diehl,*775 F.3d at 724.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard CELESTINE, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6148

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Bernard Celestine, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua Bryan Royster, *138OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Celestine appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See United States v. Celestine,*No. 4:95-cr-00041-H-9 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 2017); *see also*Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 (“After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a *clerical*error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, *or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.”*(emphasis added)). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Federico ORTIZ-LOPEZ, also known as Federico Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40045 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

*148Andrew R. Gould, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Roberto Balli, Attorney, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Federico Ortiz-Lopez appeals the 37 month sentence imposed following his conviction of being found in the United States without permission, following removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (h). He contends that he was improperly sentenced under § 1326(b) because the statute is unconstitutional on its face. He also contends that the statute is unconstitutional as applied in his case because his prior conviction was not alleged in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ortiz-Lopez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 228, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) need not be set forth in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1

Hutson, Nick

From: Hutson, Nick

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 12:17 PM

To: Frey, Nathan J.

Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Culligan, Kevin; Fruh, Steve

Subject: 073015 version of 111(b) preamble/rule

Attachments: 111b preamble_DRAFT_RLSO_073015_comparedto_072815.docx; 111b preamble_DRAFT_

073015_clean.docx

Nathan, 

Attached are 2 files: 

1. A clean version of the current 111(b) preamble; and

2. A RLSO version comparing the current version to the one that I sent you on 07/28/15 

The changes that you’ll see are mostly those listed below. 

There are also changes that address follow-up comments that you provided to me yesterday. 

1. We are reading through to ensure consistency in terminology, formatting, punctuation, grammar, etc. 

2. We are revising some sections (esp. turbine sections) for readability and clarity – however, again, no substantive 

or directional changes. 

3. We are working on the NTTA section and amendments to 60.17 – this involves making sure we are properly

incorporating the test methods (e.g., ASME test methods for determining efficiency and ANSI method for

assuring consistent accuracy of electricity monitoring) 

4. We are reviewing regulatory text to make sure it is as easy as possible for the public to understand & verifying 

that it is consistent with the preamble. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. 

Nick 

Nick Hutson, PhD 

Energy Strategies Group 

Office of Air & Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

tel: +1 919 541 2968 

email: hutson.nick@epa.gov
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D
. C
. 20460

OFFIC E OF C l·iEMICAL S A FETY AN D POLL U T I O N PREVENTION 

### Memorandum DATE: SUBJECT:

TO:

FROM:

THRU: November 6, 2014 Transmission of Additional Background Materials for the December 2 through 5 , 2014 Session ofthe FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) Entitled "Integrated Bioactivity and Exposure Ranking: A Computational Approach for the Prioritization and Screening of Chemicals in the Endocr ine Disruptor Screening Program" Fred Jenkins , Ph.D. Designated Federal Official FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Office of Science Coordination and Policy Steven M. Knott, Director Exposure Assessment Coordination and Policy Division Office of Science Coordination and Policy David Dix, Ph.D. , Director Office of Science Coordination and Policy Transmitted with this memo is a second copy of the white paper Appendix 5: Uterotrophic Study Design Radar Plots for the December 2 through 5 , 2014 session of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) reviewing the topic: "Integrated Bioactivity and Exposure Ranking: A Computational Approach for the Prioritization and Screening of Chemicals in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program." This document does not contain any new information, but is presented in an alternative format that improves readability and clarity. Further, the document does not contain any information protected by copyright, protected under statute as Confidential Business Information (CBI) or protected from disclosure to foreign and multi-national pesticide producers under FIFRA Section 1O(g). The attached document$ include the following: 

### Document Title Date Appendix 5: Uterotrophic Study Design Radar Plots.doc November 6, 20 14
Vanesa ARROYO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, o/b/o Bret Rendon, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2577

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1536 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include all members of 

the Armed Forces in the definition of ‘‘independent student’’ for purposes 

of determining the eligibility of such members for Federal financial 

assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2021 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER (for himself, Mr. RYAN, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, and Mr. TRONE) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include 

all members of the Armed Forces in the definition of 

‘‘independent student’’ for purposes of determining the 

eligibility of such members for Federal financial assistance, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving College Af5 fordability for our Guard and Reserve Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1536 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT STUDENT. 

2 Section 480(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

3 (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(d)) is amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

5 (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) 

6 through (I) as subparagraphs (F) through (J), 

7 respectively; and 

8 (B) by striking subparagraph (D) and in9 serting the following: 

10 ‘‘(D) is a veteran of the Armed Forces (as 

11 defined in subsection (c)(1)); 

12 ‘‘(E) is a member of the Armed Forces (in13 cluding the National Guard or Reserve) without 

14 regard to whether such individual is serving on 

15 active duty;’’; and 

16 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘paragraph 

17 (1)(I)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)(J)’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar ESCUDERO, also known as Oscar Perez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51391 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

*144Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Oscar Escudero, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Oscar Escudero has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Escudero has not filed, a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
OF CARMIKE CINEMAS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,771
<SECURITIES>                                       801
<RECEIVABLES>                                      522
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,831
<PP&E>                                         733,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 697,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,665
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        550
<COMMON>                                           341
<OTHER-SE>                                     225,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   697,543
<SALES>                                        151,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               481,568
<CGS>                                           19,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  458,534<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (48,813)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (18,166)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (30,647)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (30,647)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.73)
<FN>
<F1>Total costs includes impairment of long-lived assets charge of 
38.3 million and restructuring charge of 34.7 million.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Larry Felentise RAMBERT, Movant.

No. 16-1807

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Larry Feientise Rambert, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Feientise Rambert petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on various pending cases. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court and state court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. In addition, we do not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials; Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Ross D. EMERY, Appellant, v. TYCO INTEGRATED SECURITY, LLC and Sedgwick CMS, Appellees.

No. 1D17-3408

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

FRANK W. COON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10517 

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00038-GEB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Frank W. Coon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

210-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for receipt of child 

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-10517 

Coon contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the 

alleged disparity between his sentence and the sentences received by similarly 

situated defendants. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing 

Coon’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low-end 

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, 

the district court necessarily considered the issue of unwarranted disparities by 

properly calculating and reviewing the Guidelines range. See id. at 54 (“Since the 

District Judge correctly calculated and carefully reviewed the Guidelines range, he 

necessarily gave significant weight and consideration to the need to avoid 

unwarranted disparities.”).

Coon’s contention that the manner in which the child pornography 

guidelines were amended violates the separation of powers doctrine is foreclosed. 

See United States v. Kiefer, 760 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2014) (rejecting 

argument that U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 violates the separation of powers doctrine).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.12


Amendment No. 4
Pfizer Supplemental Savings Plan (the “PSSP”)


*  *  *
(New material underlined; deletions crossed out)


1. Section 2.31 shall be clarified to read as follows:  
2.31 Regular Earnings. 


However, for Pension Transfers, solely for purposes of the Retirement Savings Contribution, Regular Earnings shall not include any bonuses (including but not limited to, sales and GPP bonuses) earnedpaid or deferred in 2018 which reflects payment for services performed in 2017.  
2. Section 3.5(c) is clarified to read as follows:  
3.5(c) For any Pension Transfer, the definition of “Regular Earnings” in connection solely with the calculation of the 2018 Retirement Savings Contributions under the Plan for such Pension Transfer shall not include any bonuses (including but not limited to, sales and GPP bonuses) earned inpaid to or deferred by such Pension Transfer during 2018 which reflects performance during 2017.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000883476
<NAME> CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,635
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             737
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,660
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                83,478
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      3,242
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,242
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,242
<LOANS>                                         40,542
<ALLOWANCE>                                        651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,457
<DEPOSITS>                                      83,978
<SHORT-TERM>                                    36,318
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             23,266
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,726
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 156,457
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,082
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  120
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    14
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,416
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,621
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,978
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,438
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      103
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,788
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,428,126
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,428,126
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,984,017
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1,17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.62
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                        46
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,590
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   515
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       29
<RECOVERIES>                                        62
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  651
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               582
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             69
        


</TABLE>
Earl Allen POTEAT, III, Appellant, v. Julie Anne POTEAT, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-621

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.