Broken Borders, Broken Laws: Aligning Crime and Punishment Under Section 2L1.1(b)(7) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Despite the intensifying militarization of the United States’ borders, roughly 4,000 undocumented immigrants attempt to cross into the U.S. each day. Increased border security has not stopped the flow; rather, it has diverted migrants’ journeys into the most perilous stretches of borderlands and coastlines. In response, migrants increasingly rely on human smugglers to guide them across the border, even in the face of the well-known risks of injury and death. Under section 2L1.1(b)(7) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, defendants convicted of smuggling illegal immigrants are subject to a sentence enhancement for any bodily injury or death that occurs. The Guidelines are silent as to the issue of causation, however. As a result, circuits are split over what causal connection section 2L1.1(b)(7) requires between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting harm. This Note discusses the continuing importance of the Guidelines in the post-Booker era, and examines the circuits’ differing interpretations of section 2L1.1(b)(7). This Note concludes that a section 2L1.1(b)(7) enhancement is predicated on only a loose causal connection to the defendant’s overall criminal conduct. It advocates for an amendment to the Guidelines that would require a section 2L1.1(b)(7) enhancement to be contingent on a finding that the defendant recklessly or intentionally created a serious risk of bodily harm. Further, this Note proposes that, even before the Sentencing Commission enacts a formal amendment, judges should exercise their post-Booker sentencing discretion to require a causal connection that will best achieve the goals of retribution and deterrence

The One Loop Effective Super-Potential and Non-Holomorphicity

We calculate the Kahlerian and the lowest order non-Kahlerian contributions to the one loop effective superpotential using super-Feynman graphs in the massless Wess-Zumino Model, the massive Wess-Zumino Model and N=1, U(1) gauge theory. We also calculate the Kahlerian term in Yang-Mills Theory for a general gauge group. Using this latter result we find the one loop Kahlerian contribution for N=2 Yang-Mills Theory in terms of N=1 superfields and we show that it can only come from non-holomorphic contributions to the N=2 effective potential.Comment: LaTeX, 10 pages, 7 figures, uses bezier.sty and ifthen.sty. First amendment. The results are extended to include the Kahlerian term for a general renormalisable N=1 supersymmetric theory, containing Wess-Zumino and Yang-Mills multiplets with a cubic superpotential. One reference has been changed and one has been added. Second amendment. One acknowledgment has been altered in the `note added in proof

Leading-order nucleon self-energy in relativistic chiral effective field theory

We apply thermal field theory methods to compute microscopically the nucleon self-energy arising from one-pion exchange in isospin-symmetric nuclear matter and neutron matter. A self-consistent numerical scheme is introduced and its convergence is demonstrated. The repulsive contribution from the Fock exchange diagram to the energy per nucleon in symmetric nuclear matter is obtained.Comment: v3: matches published version, 8 pages, 6 figures. Removed discussion of saturation, changed title to reflect the shortened content. v1: 9 pages, 7 figures, v2: minor amendment

Resolution of the Board of Trustees of The International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

Amendment of Article VIII Sections 2 and 7 of the Charter

Astrophysical and Cosmological Tests of Quantum Theory

We discuss several proposals for astrophysical and cosmological tests of quantum theory. The tests are motivated by deterministic hidden-variables theories, and in particular by the view that quantum physics is merely an effective theory of an equilibrium state. The proposed tests involve searching for nonequilibrium violations of quantum theory in: primordial inflaton fluctuations imprinted on the cosmic microwave background, relic cosmological particles, Hawking radiation, photons with entangled partners inside black holes, neutrino oscillations, and particles from very distant sources.Comment: 25 pages. Amendment to section 7. Contribution to: "The Quantum Universe", special issue of Journal of Physics A, dedicated to Prof. G.-C. Ghirardi on the occasion of his seventieth birthda

Comparison of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA)

[Excerpt] On March 6, 2017, the House Committee on Ways and Means and the House Energy and Commerce Committee independently held markups. Each committee voted to transmit its budget reconciliation legislative recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. On March 16, 2017, the House Committee on the Budget held a markup and voted to report a reconciliation bill, H.R. 1628, American Health Care Act (AHCA) of 2017. The House subsequently passed the AHCA with amendments on May 4, 2017, by a vote of 217 to 213. The House bill was received in the Senate on June 7, 2017, and the next day the Senate majority leader had it placed on the calendar, making it available for floor consideration. The Senate Budget Committee published on its website a “discussion draft” titled, “The Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017” (BCRA) on June 22 and updated the discussion draft on June 26. This draft legislation is written in the form of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, meaning that it is intended to be considered by the Senate as an amendment to H.R. 1628, as passed by the House, but that all of the House-passed language would be stricken and the language of the BCRA would be inserted in its place. Both the AHCA and the BCRA would repeal or modify provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L. 111-148, as amended). In addition, both the AHCA and the BCRA include new programs and requirements that are not related to the ACA. This report contains three tables that, together, provide an overview of AHCA provisions and BCRA provisions. Table 1 includes provisions that apply to the private health insurance market; Table 2 includes provisions that affect the Medicaid program; and Table 3 includes provisions related to public health, taxes, and implementation funding

Education requirements of the air law and regulations for air transport pilots

V úvodní části práce je nastíněna základní charakteristika předpisů JAR-FCL 1 a JAR-FCL 2 a dále je zde rozebrána problematika týkající se požadavků na vzdělání dopravních pilotů. Konkrétně je charakterizována hlava J předpisu JAR-FCL 1 (2), jsou zde představeny dokumenty rozvádějící požadavky týkající se teoretických znalosti, tzv. cíle výuky teoretických znalostí (Learning Objectives) a je uveden přehled současných požadavků na vzdělání pilotů z okruhu Letecký zákon a postupy. V následující fázi se věnuji samotnému porovnávání požadavků na vzdělání dopravních pilotů (da-ných předpisy JAR-FCL), a to konkrétně určením rozdílů mezi požadavky určenými starým Amendmentem 2 a novým Amendmentem 7 (spolu s Learning Objectives). Srovnávám obsah a strukturu uvedených požadavků, nejdříve porovnáním nadřazených okruhů a poté detailním rozborem všech témat. V poslední části jsou na základě předchozího porovnání zhodnoceny změny vzešlé z uvedených Amendmentů a je navržena nová osnova předmětu Letecký zákon a předpisy, založená na posled-ních vydaných Learning Objectives z roku 2008. V CD příloze je k dispozici celé znění jak původních požadavků, daných Dodatkem 1 k ustanovení JAR-FCL 1.470, Amendment 2, tak i nových požadavků daných shodným dodatkem, ovšem Amendmentem 7 a novými Learning Ob-jectives. V tištěné příloze je potom zahrnuta navržená osnova předmětu.In the introductory part of the thesis, general characteristics of JAR-FCL 1 and JAR-FCL 2 are given and education requirements for the Air Law and Regulations for air transport pilots are discussed. Especially there is JAR-FCL 1 (2) Subpart J described and there are introduced Learning Objectives, that „represent an indication of the depth and scope of knowledge“ [3] required by the JAA Pilot Li-censes. Also in the beginning there is the brief summary of such requirements for the Air Law and Regulations. In the middle part, actually I’m making the comparison of these requirements. Concretely I’m pointing out the differences between JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 2 and JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 7 (including Learning Objectives). There are compared both content and structuring stand points, primarily fo-cusing on the basic topics, secondarily on the more detailed parts. Finally, on the basis of comparison there are reviewed realized differences and also there is the new Air Law and Regulations course syllabus introduced. Original wording of the historic and today‘s knowledge requirements defined by JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 2 and JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 7 (along with the Learning Objectives) are placed in the CD appendix. In the printed appendix, there is the new course syllabus inserted.