Form 3582: Fill & Download for Free

This is a pretty common question, as more and more states are "legalizing" Marijuana (the quotes are specifically to address the fact that state decisions can only impact state law, not federal law).The United States does not guarantee retroactive ameliorative relief in sentencing; and yes: a lot of countries try to do so.In other words, just because it's legal now does not mean you weren't legally sentenced.To do so requires either a pardon by the governor of the state in which the act was committed, or, if it was a federal crime, a presidential pardon. Legally speaking, this tends to be referred to "retroactive ameliorative relief in sentencing" -- or much more simply put: clemency.The other issue is that, without a specific judiciary order, even with clemency, a pardoned offense remains in your criminal record.So if you were convicted over felony drug possession in Colorado over Marijuana possession, and the state has now made it legal (and by the way... federally: it's still not legal, and federally punishable), and you were pardoned, or have served your sentence: it's still a felony conviction, unless it's expunged.So you're still not going to be getting a job as a school teacher, at a bank, or in a pharmacy, or (likely) a hospital, without an expungement.It's problematic, but the most common cause of this question is a drug conviction, and it's problematic in several respects:Even if the state wanted to release you, mass pardons are generally not done, so it would tend to be on a case by case basisAdditionally, you would then have a huge court backlog on expungementsYou would also be adding a lot of people to the job market without adding a lot of jobs to the job market; the last time something of this maginitude happened, it was large numbers of soldiers being released from service, following a war......which in turn, since there were not jobs available, led to a massive increase in drug useEven assuming we streamline this process, there would be massive social disruption, which is why the U.S. does not tend to permit mass clemency after laws changeAnd all this is totally separate from the fact that the crime they were convictive of was a state crime, and they had not been tried in federal court -- where it's also a crime.You could almost imagine setting up an assembly line, where you get pardoned, get into line for the state court to get your offense expunged, and then on exit from the court, you are arrested by federal authorities (DEA or similar), ushered into federal court, convicted of the concomitant federal crime, and then placed back in the same cell.The only difference? Who's paying the rent.To put some perspective on this, consider ex post facto laws; these attempt to make things retroactively illegal.Let's say that some state is successful in eroding the Roe v. Wade decision, and some forms of abortion become illegal (again, as they were in the past).Would it be fair to throw the book at the doctors, nurses, women, hospitals, etc., who participated in these now illegal procedures?What if Prohibition becomes a thing again, and they look at your Safeway card, and see that you bought a six pack of beer every two weeks for the past 5 years?This is why retroactive changes to sentencing are almost never permitted: they may help some people, but they could also harm others.All that said, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 can reduce existing sentences; however there is strong pressure to make this a proportional reduction, rather than reduction below the amount of time already served. Additionally, courts tend to be reluctant to forego parole and parole penalties -- i.e. failing to pass a drug test means you are back in jail.See 18 U.S. Code § 3582(c)(2) - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment; also, be aware: a prisoner still has to raise this issue before the court for any action to occur. This is called a "Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2)".Generally speaking, so far retroactivity has been fairly limited (e.g. it's been applied to Crack Cocaine), and it only applies to federal mandatory minimums; so if you are in Colorado in prison over Marijuana: you're likely pretty stuck (but consult a lawyer for a definitive answer).

Using the J programming language, brute force approach:J primitives: NuVoc - J Wiki#m=./:~n#~(5700>n)*.3500<n=.10#.(4 perm 7){2 3 4 5 6 7 8280The answer is 280.<<<>>>List the first & last few.m3524 3526 3527 3528 3542 3546 3547 3548 3562 3564 3567 3568 3572 3574 3576 3578 3582 3584 3586 3587 3624 3625 3627 3628 3642 3645 3647 3648 3652 3654 ….…. 5467 5468 5472 5473 5476 5478 5482 5483 5486 5487 5623 5624 5627 5628 5632 5634 5637 5638 5642 5643 5647 5648 5672 5673 5674 5678 5682 5683 5684 5687

There exists [math]a, b \in \N[/math] such as[math]N = 30 + 32a = 44 + 58b[/math]Therefore,[math]16a - 29b = 22-15 = 7[/math]Let us notice that [math]5\times 29 - 9\times 16 = 1[/math].Therefore, [math]35\times 29 - 63\times 16 = 7[/math].Hence, [math]a = -63[/math] is a non-fondamental solution to our equation. We can show that the other solutions are of the form [math]a = -63 + 29k[/math], with [math]k \in \Z[/math].Therefore, the first positive solutions are[math]a = -63 + 3\times 29 = 24[/math][math]N = 798[/math][math]a = -63 + 4\times 29 = 53[/math][math]N = 1726[/math][math]a = -63 + 5\times 29 = 82[/math][math]N = 2654[/math][math]a = -63 + 6\times 29 = 111[/math][math]N = [/math][math]3582[/math][math][/math]Therefore, your number is one of [math]\boxed{\{798, 1726, 2654\}}[/math].