alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
YOU SEE IT, BUT DO THEY? 

Written By CAPT M. Rizzo

We all know the old saying that “a picture is worth a thousand 

words.” The use of pictures and/or video as evidence in a case can 

benefit both the Hearing Officer and the Party as the case is 

adjudicated. In a sense, the Hearing Officer is “taken” to the scene 

through visual evidence. If properly presented, visual evidence can 

assist a Hearing Officer in understanding the facts prior to making a 

final decision. However, sometimes the improper submission of 

pictures and / or video causes the opposite result. Rather than 

enhancing the case review, improperly submitted pictures and / or 

video hinders the review. The following guidelines are provided 

should you have a need to submit pictures and / or video as 

supporting evidence.

Printed pictures are preferred to avoid the obvious difficulties that 

might be encountered with digital media. Whenever possible, print 

the pictures and send them instead of digital media. When sending 

pictures, ensure first that they are relevant to the violation. If so, 

label them accordingly, including the date and time the picture was 

taken and the name of the person who took the picture. Every 

picture should have a description of what it reflects and an exhibit or 

enclosure number that can be matched to a exhibit or enclosure 

number on the Enforcement Summary. Remember, two identical 

copies are necessary—one for the Hearing Office and one for the 

party. If the pictures are in color, then the party’s copy must be in 

color.

If sending digital media as evidence, there are some special 

considerations to keep in mind:
The Hearing Officer and the party must be able to “view” the CD or 

DVD. Please do not send VHS tapes. If we can’t see it, then the 

evidence is not in the case file. Use a standard format compatible 

with most computer media viewers. Always send two copies of the 

CD or DVD as the party must receive a copy. 

Only include pictures or video clips that are “relevant’ to the 

violations alleged. Sending two hours of video generally isn’t helpful.

Ensure you label each CD or DVD as an exhibit. The enforcement 

activity should include a full description of what is presented in the 

CD or DVD, who prepared the CD or DVD, the date it was prepared 

and its exhibit or enclosure number.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5706 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 660
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5706

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 16, 2010

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                           November 30, 2010

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the building occupied by the Government Printing Office 
located at 31451 East United Avenue in Pueblo, Colorado, as the ``Frank 
              Evans Government Printing Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The building occupied by the Government Printing Office located at 
31451 East United Avenue in Pueblo, Colorado, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Frank Evans Government Printing Office Building'' 
during the period in which the building is occupied by the Government 
Printing Office.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    With respect to the period in which the building referred to in 
section 1 is occupied by the Government Printing Office, any reference 
in a law, map, regulation, document, record, or other paper of the 
United States to that building shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Frank Evans Government Printing Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 660

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5706

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the building occupied by the Government Printing Office 
located at 31451 East United Avenue in Pueblo, Colorado, as the ``Frank 
              Evans Government Printing Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 30, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
(8 Misc. Rep. 75.)

#### SKINNER ENGINE CO. v. OLD STATEN ISLAND DYEING ESTABLISHMENT.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

April 23, 1894.)

Negotiable Instruments—Bona Fide Purchaser.

One who accepts a note before maturity in full discharge of an antecedent debt is a bona fide purchaser for value.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by the Skinner Engine Company against the Old Staten Island Dyeing Establishment. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before NEWBURGER, P. J., and McCARTHY and CONLAN, JJ.

Burrill, Zabriskie & Burrill, for appellant.

Ewing, Whitman & Ewing, for respondent.

McCARTHY, J:

We have examined very carefully the authorities cited by the appellant, and think that many of the distinctions drawn are too fine, and not borne out by the evidence in this case. The evidence is clear and sufficient that the plaintiff accepted this note in suit in full and complete discharge of the antecedent debt, and thus became a bona fide holder for value, before maturity. This, being so, cut off any defenses or claims which the defendant might have against Barnhurst, unless evidence of knowledge or notice thereof to plaintiff is shown. This has not been done, and where the evidence is unimpeached, and not contradicted, it is the duty of the trial justice to direct a verdict for the plaintiff. These facts, in our opinion, appear in this case; and, finding no error in the rulings, judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### Property Hackers, LLC, Appellant, v Stewart Title Insurance Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[949 NYS2d 70]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a title insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered May 3, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Stewart Title Insurance Company which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a title insurance policy (hereinafter the policy) issued in connection with real property located in the Bronx (hereinafter the property). The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Stewart Title Insurance Company (hereinafter Stewart) which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, concluding that the terms of the policy provided that the protection of title against any rights of eminent domain was expressly excluded from coverage unless “notice of the exercise thereof had been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,” that the City of New York commenced condemnation proceedings against the property after the issuance of the policy, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to this exclusion, which was expressly set forth in the policy.

Title insurance insures the owner of, and other persons lawfully interested in, “real property and chattels real against loss by reason of defective titles and encumbrances and insur[es] the *819correctness of searches for all instruments, liens or charges affecting the title to such property” (Insurance Law § 1113 [a] [18]; *see L. Smirlock Realty Corp. v Title Guar. Co.,*52 NY2d 179 [1981]; *Logan v Barretto,*251 AD2d 552 [1998]; *Citibank v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co.,*228 AD2d 635, 636 [1996]). Liability of the title insurer to its insured is essentially based on contract law and, as such, “ ‘is governed and limited by agreements, terms, conditions and provisions contained in the title insurance policy’ ” *(Citibank v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co.,*228 AD2d at 637, quoting 5A Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property § 1.03 [6], at 15 [4th ed]).

Here, the Supreme Court properly granted Stewart’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Stewart met its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiffs claim of coverage fell within the exclusions of the policy. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see St. Luke’s Pentecostal Church, Inc. v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co.,*37 AD3d 702 [2007]). Florio, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2413 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2413

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 601 South Main Street in Elkhart, Indiana, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
                    Jesse L. Williams Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

 Mrs. Walorski (for herself, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Rokita, 
Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, Mr. Messer, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, 
  and Mr. Young of Indiana) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 601 South Main Street in Elkhart, Indiana, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
                    Jesse L. Williams Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT JESSE L. WILLIAMS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 601 South Main Street in Elkhart, Indiana, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Jesse L. Williams Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Jesse L. Williams Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeResourcesAdministrative Law JudgesDecisionsALJ Decisions 2017

**ALJ Decisions: 2017**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

    

**

                      - FOIA
                      - Privacy Policy
                      - MHS Notice of Privacy Practices
                      - Accessibility
                      - No FEAR
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                      - DHS Office of Inspector General
                      - WhiteHouse.gov
                      - USA.gov

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Delano Brown, Appellant, v New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 918]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of as*1516signment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Mark H. Dadd, A.J. — Habeas Corpus.) Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          28,711
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,073
<PP&E>                                         394,029
<DEPRECIATION>                                  90,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 361,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,387
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   361,396
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,997
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,223
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,367
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,367
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.92
        

</TABLE>
**AMENDMENT
      TO OFFICE SERVICES AGREEMENT**





**between**





**WACKER
      DRIVE EXECUTIVE SUITES, LLC**





**and**





**20/20
      Technologies, Inc.**











This
      Amendment is entered into this **1st** of **March,
      2007** ,
      by and
      Wacker Drive Executive Suites (“WES”) and **20/20
      Technologies, Inc.** ,
      for the
      purpose of renewing and adding to the terms and conditions of the Office
      Services Agreement between them dated **March
      1, 2006** .
      The
      parties agree as follows:




The
      Suite **#319
      a,b & c** will be
      renewed for **6
      months** beginning **March
      1, 2007** and
      ending **September
      30, 2007.**




The
      current contract charges will be increased to **$3440** per
      month
      for that period.




Suite
      #
      322 will be added to the existing Agreement. The contract charges will be
      $750/month plus any communications package charges in accordance with the prices
      on Paragraph 6 of the original Agreement.





Renewal





Provided
      CLIENT is not in default of this Lease, and upon the termination date set forth
      herein, this Office Services Agreement shall be renewed for the same period
      of
      time at the renewal rate of **5% over the base contract charges of $3440 & $750** upon
      the
      same terms and conditions specified herein, unless either party notifies the
      other in writing by certified or registered mail sixty (60) days prior to the
      expiration date that the Agreement will not be renewed.







**WACKER
                DRIVE EXECUTIVE SUITES, LLC**
            
            **20/20
                Technologies, Inc.**_______________________________
            
            _______________________________By:
            
            By:Manager
            
            Title:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4659

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMEL RASHEED HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:04-cr-00009-jlk)

Submitted: February 28, 2007 Decided: March 21, 2007

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Court.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

I. D. Walton Caudill, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.

Brownlee, United States Attorney, Edward A. Lustig, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jamel Rasheed Harris was found guilty of aiding and

abetting (1) the possession with intent to distribute more than

five grams of cocaine base (crack) (Count 1) and (2) the possession

of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense (Count 2). On

appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions for aiding and abetting, and that the district court

erred by allowing a police officer to testify as an expert in drugs

and drug distribution. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Harris alleges that there was insufficient evidence that

he aided and abetted the distribution of crack or possessed the

firearm in relationship to drug trafficking. Thus, he argues, the

district court should have granted his motions for acquittal. This

court reviews the denial of a motion for acquittal de novo. See

United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1925 (2006) (stating standard). Viewing the

evidence as required, we find there was substantial evidence to

support Harris’ convictions of aiding and abetting. Glasser v.

United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).

Second, we find no abuse of discretion in the district

court’s decision to allow the police officer to testify as an

expert in drugs and drug trafficking. See Kumho Tire Co. v.

Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999) (stating review standard for

expert testimony); United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 589
- 3 -

(4th Cir. 1994) (noting we have “repeatedly upheld the admission of

law enforcement officers’ expert opinion testimony in drug

trafficking cases”). 

Accordingly, we affirm Harris’ convictions. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
exv10w4wa






Exhibit 10.4(a)



June 9, 2009




Willowbridge Associates Inc.

101 Morgan Lane — Suite 180

Plainsboro, N.J. 08536


Attention: Mr Steve R. Crane




     Re: Management Agreement Renewals



Dear Mr. Crane:



We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreements through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain
unchanged.





	 	•	 	Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Orion Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Institutional Futures Portfolio LP
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Willowbridge Argo Master Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Orion Futures Fund (Cayman) Ltd.





Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.



Very truly yours,



CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Jennifer Magro
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Jennifer Magro	 	 
	 

	 	Chief Financial Officer & Director	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	WILLOWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES INC.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Steven R. Crane	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Print Name: Steven R. Crane	 	 






JM/sr
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2487 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow Ribbon G.I. 

Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of Marine Gunnery 

Sergeant John David Fry scholarship, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mr. JEFFRIES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow 

Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program to cover 

recipients of Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry 

scholarship, 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 ‘‘Fry Scholarship En5 hancement Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2487 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF YELLOW RIBBON G.I. EDUCATION 

2 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3317(a) of title 38, 

4 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘in para5 graphs (1) and (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘in paragraphs (1), (2), 

6 and (9)’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to academic years 

9 beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS