alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2570 

To authorize funds for the United States Marshals Service’s Fugitive Safe 

Surrender Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2006 

Mr. DEWINE (for himself, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. KYL, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize funds for the United States Marshals Service’s 

Fugitive Safe Surrender Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) Fugitive Safe Surrender is a program of the 

6 United States Marshals Service, in partnership with 

7 public, private, and faith-based organizations, which 

8 temporarily transforms a church into a courthouse, 

9 so fugitives can turn themselves in, in an atmosVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:27 Apr 08, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2570.IS S2570

jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 2570 IS

1 phere where they feel more comfortable to do so, and 

2 have nonviolent cases adjudicated immediately. 

3 (2) In the 4-day pilot program in Cleveland, 

4 Ohio, over 800 fugitives turned themselves in. By 

5 contrast, a successful Fugitive Task Force sweep, 

6 conducted for 3 days after Fugitive Safe Surrender, 

7 resulted in the arrest of 65 individuals. 

8 (3) Fugitive Safe Surrender is safer for defend9 ants, law enforcement, and innocent bystanders than 

10 needing to conduct a sweep. 

11 (4) Based upon the success of the pilot pro12 gram, Fugitive Safe Surrender should be expanded 

13 to other cities throughout the United States. 

14 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION. 

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Marshals Serv16 ice shall establish, direct, and coordinate a program (to 

17 be known as the ‘‘Fugitive Safe Surrender Program’’), 

18 under which the United States Marshals Service shall ap19 prehend Federal, State, and local fugitives in a safe, se20 cure, and peaceful manner to be coordinated with law en21 forcement and community leaders in designated cities 

22 throughout the United States. 

23 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

24 are authorized to be appropriated to the United States 

25 Marshals Service to carry out this section— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•S 2570 IS

1 (1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; 

2 (2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

3 (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009. 

4 (c) OTHER EXISTING APPLICABLE LAW.—Nothing in 

5 this section shall be construed to limit any existing author6 ity under any other provision of Federal or State law for 

7 law enforcement agencies to locate or apprehend fugitives 

8 through task forces or any other means. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-218594) pertaining to the 2017 Equity Incentiveand 2017 Non-Employee Director Plans of KCAP Financial, Inc. of our reports dated February 26, 2019, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of KCAP Financial, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of KCAPFinancial, Inc., included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2018, filed with the Securities andExchange Commission.

 

 

 

/s/ Ernst &Young LLP

New York, New York

February 26, 2019
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-143884 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 14, 2007 (June 14, 2007
as it pertains to the stock split described in Note 1), relating to the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from April 11, 2006
(inception) to December 31, 2006 and the financial statement schedule listed in the index to the financial statements of BioFuel Energy Corp. appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of BioFuel Energy Corp for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Denver,
Colorado
March 10, 2008

---



QuickLinks
§ 51.1830 Fairly well colored. *Fairly well colored* means that the surface of the fruit may have green color which does not exceed the aggregate area of a circle 1- 1 ⁄ 4 inches (31.8 mm) in diameter and that the remainder of the surface has a yellow or better ground color with some portion of the surface showing reddish tangerine blush, or characteristic color for the variety.
# 48.202 Clause for construction contracts.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.248-3, *Value Engineering*-*Construction*, in *construction**solicitations* and contracts when the contract amount is estimated to exceed the *simplified acquisition threshold*, unless an incentive contract is contemplated. The *contracting officer**may* include the clause in contracts of lesser value if the *contracting officer* sees a potential for significant savings. The *contracting officer**shall* not include the clause in incentive-type *construction* contracts. If the *head of the contracting activity* determines that the cost of computing and tracking *collateral savings* for a contract will exceed the benefits to be derived, the *contracting officer**shall* use the clause with its AlternateI.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 48.2 - Contract Clauses
#### In the Matter of State Division of Human Rights, Petitioner, v. Richard L. Kidder, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Application denied without prejudice to the right of petitioner to renew upon proof of noneomplianee with the order of the Commissioner and other facts showing the necessity for the enforcement of said order. (Executive Law, § 297, subd. 7; § 298; *Matter of State Div. of Human Rights*v. *Kerpoe, Testa & O’Donnell,*34 A D 2d 1111; and see *Matter of State Div. of Human Rights*v. *Union Carbide Corp.,*34 A D 2d 636; *Matter of State Div. of Human Rights*v. *Employers-Commercial Union Ins. Group,*33 A D 2d 273.)
#### § 56.5 Accessibility of product.

Each product for which grading service is requested shall be so conditioned and placed as to permit a proper determination of the class, quality, quantity, or condition of such product.

[20 FR 670, Feb. 1, 1955, as amended at 27 FR 10317, Oct. 23, 1962. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
Subpart 42.10 - [Reserved]           **Parent topic:** Part 42 - Contract Administration and Audit Services
52.211-7 Alternatives to Government-Unique

Standards.

As prescribed in 11.107(b), insert the following provision:

Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards (Nov 1999)

(a) This solicitation includes Government-unique standards. The offeror may propose voluntary

consensus standards that meet the Government’s requirements as alternatives to the Governmentunique standards. The Government will accept use of the voluntary consensus standard instead of

the Government-unique standard if it meets the Government’s requirements unless inconsistent with

law or otherwise impractical.

(b) If an alternative standard is proposed, the offeror must furnish data and/or information regarding

the alternative in sufficient detail for the Government to determine if it meets the Government’s

requirements. Acceptance of the alternative standard is a unilateral decision made solely at the

discretion of the Government.

(c) Offers that do not comply with the Government-unique standards specified in this solicitation

may be determined to be nonresponsive or unacceptable. The offeror may submit an offer that

complies with the Government-unique standards specified in this solicitation, in addition to any

proposed alternative standard(s).

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.211 [Reserved]
July 23 , 2015

M r. Christopher Shwarz

Owner

P

- 51 Productions, LLC

427 Sandpiper Court

Edgewater, FL 32141

Dear Mr. Schwarz :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your May 21 , 2015 exemption request on behalf of P

- 51 Productions, LLC into

the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 1752 ), but we are unable to process your request any

further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, h ow it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional i nformation, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any ques tions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

B rittany N ewton

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
4.001 Definitions.

As used in this partProcurement Instrument Identifier (PIID) means the Government-unique identifier for each

solicitation, contract, agreement, or order. For example, an agency may use as its PIID for

procurement actions, such as delivery and task orders or basic ordering agreements, the order or

agreement number in conjunction with the contract number (see 4.1602).

Supplementary procurement instrument identifier means the non-unique identifier for a

procurement action that is used in conjunction with the Government-unique identifier. For example,

an agency may use as its PIID for an amended solicitation, the Government-unique identifier for a

solicitation number (e.g., N0002309R0009) in conjunction with a non-unique amendment number

(e.g., 0001). The non-unique amendment number represents the supplementary PIID.

Parent topic: Part 4 - Administrative and Information Matters
Page 1 of 2

Case No: 3:20cv5572/LAC/EMT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 PENSACOLA DIVISION 

JESSE E. MOODY, JR., 

Inmate No. X02438, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No: 3:20cv5572/LAC/EMT 

CHRISTOPHER EDELEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

____________________________/ 

O R D E R

 This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge’s 

Report and Recommendation dated June 23, 2020 (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff has been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to 

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No 

objections have been filed. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it 

should be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted 

and incorporated by reference in this order. 

Case 3:20-cv-05572-LC-EMT Document 5 Filed 07/22/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:20cv5572/LAC/EMT

2. This case is transferred, pursuant to Local Rule 3.1(C), to the 

Tallahassee Division of this District Court. 

3. The clerk of court is directed to close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2020. 

 

 LACEY A. COLLIER 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-05572-LC-EMT Document 5 Filed 07/22/20 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Common Council of the City of Amsterdam, Petitioner, v. Town Board of the Town of Amsterdam, Respondent.

Cooke, J.

Application by petitioner pursuant to section 712 of the General Municipal Law to confirm report of Referees and for judgment (1) that the proposed annexation of certain territory in the Town of Amsterdam to the City of Amsterdam is in the over-all public interest and (2) that the territory be annexed without calling a special election pursuant to section 713 of the General Municipal Law. The application is unopposed. The Referees’ findings are supported by the evidence. We find the proposed annexation to be in the over-all public interest and, being uninhabited, the territory involved' may be annexed without compliance with section 713 of the General Municipal Law. (See *Matter of Bd. of Trustees of Vil. of Scotia*v. *Town Bd. of Town of Glenville,*32 A D 2d 593; *Matter of Common Council of City of Gloversville*v. *Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown,*31 A D 2d 770; *Matter of Common Council of City of Middletown*v. *Town Bd. of Town of Wallkill,*29 A D 2d 561.) Judgment for petitioner, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 263]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ263.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 1747]]

Public Law 107-263
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 89 River Street in Hoboken, New Jersey, as the ``Frank Sinatra Post 
       Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 30, 2002 -  [H.R. 3034]>> 

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 89 River 
Street in Hoboken, New Jersey, and known as the Hoboken Main Post 
Office, shall be known and designated as the ``Frank Sinatra Post Office 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Frank Sinatra Post Office 
Building''.

    Approved October 30, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3034 (S. 1222):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            June 25, 27, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 17, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Mary Di Salvo et al., Respondents, v. Angela Bartolone et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) Anna Di Salvo et al., Respondents, v. Angela Bartolone et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

Two judgments of the Supreme Court, Orange County, each entered May 26, 1966, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to respondents in each action (cf. *Maryinuk*v. *Pendell,*27 A D 2d 694). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
47.303-11 F.o.b. inland point, country of

importation.

(a) Explanation of delivery term."F.o.b. inland point, country of importation" means free of expense

to the Government, on board the indicated type of conveyance of the carrier, delivered to the

specified inland point where the consignee’s facility is located.

(b) Contractor responsibilities. The contractor shall-

(1)

(i) Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or

(ii) In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for ocean transportation in conformance

with carrier requirements to protect the goods;

(2)

(i) Deliver, in or on the inland carrier’s conveyance, the shipment in good order and condition to the

specified inland point where the consignee’s facility is located;

(ii) Pay and bear all applicable charges incurred up to the point of delivery, including transportation

costs; export, import, or other fees or taxes; costs of landing; wharfage costs; customs duties and

costs of certificates of origin; consular invoices; and other documents that may be required for

importation; and

(3) Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods until their arrival on or in the carrier’s

conveyance at the specified inland point.

(c) Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at

52.247-39, F.o.b. Inland Point, Country of Importation, when the delivery term is f.o.b. inland point,

country of importation.

Parent topic: 47.303 Standard delivery terms and contract clauses.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted July 14, 2006 Decided July 27, 2006 Before Hon. THOMAS E. FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Nos. 05-2599 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. WILLIAM C. HORSHAW, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division No. 2:01 CR 185(4) TLS Theresa L. Springmann, Judge

. O R D E R William Horshaw pleaded guilty to two counts of using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a felony drug offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). He was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 96 months’ imprisonment. His appointed counsel moves to withdraw under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Since counsel’s brief is facially adequate, we limit our inquiry to the issues raised there and in Horshaw’s response under Circuit Rule 51(b). See United States v. Tabb , 125 F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Counsel first notes that Horshaw has not expressed a desire to withdraw his guilty plea based on an argument of involuntariness. In fact, in his Rule 51(b) submission, Horshaw says, “I have no desireto have my conviction set aside,” and that he is “only asking the court to rule on an unreasonable sentence.” Any UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 05-2599 Page 2 consideration of the voluntariness of his guilty plea would therefore be inappropriate. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). The sentencing arguments that Horshaw raises as potential issues for an appeal are frivolous. He received two terms of four years each, the statutory maximum sentence, which was the sentence that was contemplated in his plea agreement and at his plea hearing. Nevertheless, Horshaw contends that he should not have been charged and sentenced for two counts of using a phone to commit a felony drug offense because “[t]he calls were only 3 min[ute]s apart and therefore, I could only receive time for the one offense. ” But this ignores the plain language of the statute, which states, “Each separate use of a communication facility shall be a separate offense under this subsection.” 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Horshaw also argues that he wrongfully “received punishment past the statutory maximum.” But this simply is not so. He was given the statutory maximum term and no more for each violation. Horshaw should count himself lucky, for his sentencing guideline range was 135 to 168 months; the statutory maximum prevented his sentence from being even higher. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
#### Gregory P. Gentile et al., Appellants, v Robert Pergament Trust et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 655]

In an action to *628recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated June 30, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Mazzella v Capobianco,*27 AD3d 532 [2006]; *Leha v Yonkers Gen. Hosp.,*22 AD3d 809 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 706 [2006]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]). The jury reasonably could have concluded that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff Gregory E Gentile were caused entirely by preexisting conditions and prior accidents. Therefore, the verdict in favor of the defendants was not against the weight of the evidence.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see Calabrese v Cheung W. Chan,*244 AD2d 376 [1997]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/16/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/16/20 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/16/20 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/16/20 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/16/20 Page 8 of 8
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of The Saint James Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Bruce
Cosgrove,  President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.




                                         /s/ Bruce Cosgrove
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Bruce Cosgrove, President, Chief
                                         Executive Officer & Chief Financial
                                         Officer

Dated: December 14, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LARRY ALONZO HILL BEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv474-MW/MAF

TYLER BUSH and the

CHATTAHOOCHEE POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 5. Upon consideration, no objections1 having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This action is DISMISSED for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.” The Clerk shall close 

1 Simultaneous with this Order, this Court is granting a fifth extension of time for a different 

pro se party to file objections in a different case. This Court is mindful of COVID-19 and the 

limitations the pandemic has placed on parties. Accordingly, parties may file one-page requests 

for extension for good cause—indeed, this Court receives and grants such requests daily. But 

Plaintiff did not request an extension to file objections here, or otherwise respond to the Magistrate 

Judge’s order from October 1, 2020, ECF No. 4.

Case 4:20-cv-00474-MW-MAF Document 6 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 2
2

the file. 

SO ORDERED on December 9, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00474-MW-MAF Document 6 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 2