Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): regarding Ragnoli. App. 79. The letter explained that Ragnoli had requested that the BOP run his federal sentence concurrently with his state sentence. The BOP could accomplish this by retroactively designating the state prison as the institution for service of Ragnoli’s federal sentence. This retroactive designation would reduce the total amount of time Ragnoli spent in custody, as the State Court had ordered. The letter indicated that it is the BOP’s “preference” to obtain the federal sentencing court’s position on any such retroactive designations, but that the BOP would make its own decision if it had not heard back from the District Court within 60 days. If the District Court stated its position within 60 days, the BOP would designate Ragnoli’s place of imprisonment acco ir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Since the District Court’s letter was not an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the portion of a district courts order that included a specific place of imprisonment was only a nonbinding recommendation to the bop and therefore not appealable (B) holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation (C) holding that district courts nonbinding recommendations to the bop are not appealable (D) holding that a district courts recommendation that the bop not credit the defendant for his time in state custody was not appealable because the district courts recommendation was not binding on the bop (E) holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error
Output (English): holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation