alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 2-93416, 33-51744, 33-65239, and 333-12189) pertaining to the
1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan for Key Employees, the 1991 Stock Option Plan
of The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, and The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation
1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and in the related Prospectuses of our report
dated March 12, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 1998.
 
                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
April 27, 1998
 
                                       44
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1957

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the list of diseases presumed to be service connected in the case of radiation-exposed veterans

and to expand the circumstances deemed have been radiation-risk activities for members of the Armed Forces.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 2001

Mr. EVANS (for himself, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. FILNER, Ms. BROWN of Florida,

Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. FROST, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. SANDERS, and Mr.

WYNN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the list

of diseases presumed to be service connected in the case

of radiation-exposed veterans and to expand the circumstances deemed have been radiation-risk activities for

members of the Armed Forces.

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 ‘‘Justice for Atomic Vet5 erans Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1957 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF LIST OF DISEASES PRESUMED TO

2 BE SERVICE CONNECTED FOR RADIATION-EX3 POSED VETERANS.

4 Section 1112(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code,

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 paragraphs:

7 ‘‘(Q) Lung cancer.

8 ‘‘(R) Bone cancer.

9 ‘‘(S) Skin cancer.

10 ‘‘(T) Colon cancer.

11 ‘‘(U) Posterior subcapsular cataracts.

12 ‘‘(V) Nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease.

13 ‘‘(W) Ovarian cancer.

14 ‘‘(X) Parathyroid adenoma.

15 ‘‘(Y) Tumors of the brain and central nervous

16 system.

17 ‘‘(Z) Rectal cancer.’’.

18 SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF SERVICE CIRCUMSTANCES DEEMED

19 TO BE RADIATION-RISK ACTIVITIES.

20 Section 1112(c)(3)(B) of title 38, United States

21 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new

22 clauses:

23 ‘‘(iv) Service at Amchitka Island, Alaska,

24 involving the performance of duty related to the

25 Long Shot, Milrow or Cannikin underground

26 nuclear tests which were conducted on that is-
3

•HR 1957 IH

1 land during the period beginning October 23,

2 1965, and ending December 31, 1973.

3 ‘‘(v) Service at such other locations, during

4 such periods of time, as the Secretary deter5 mines by regulation to be service that is com6 parable as a radiation-risk activity to the serv7 ice specified in clauses (i) through (iv).’’.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ES-956-1910-BK-5YMG; ES-055518 Group No. 181, Wisconsin] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior 

# ACTION:

Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Wisconsin. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, Attn: Cadastral Survey. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The lands we surveyed are:

## Fourth Principal Meridian, Wisconsin 

T. 22 N., R. 3 W.
      ( print page 54164)    
The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines; and the survey of the subdivision of section 33, Township 22 North, Range 3 West, Fourth Principal Meridian, Wisconsin and was accepted September 5, 2008.

We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information. If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. 

We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals. 

                        Dated:                         *September 11, 2008.*

Ronald J. Eberle, 

Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor.

[FR Doc. E8-21827 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00349-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JOSHUA COLE JOHNSON,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

The defendant was charged by an Indictment [Doc. # 1] on August 29, 2011, under 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924 with two counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and

under 18 U.S.C. § 841 with three counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to

distribute. A warrant for his arrest was issued on the same day.

On October 13, 2011, the defendant, who apparently is in state custody, filed a Motion

for Writ of Habius [sic] Corpus [Doc. # 3] seeking to be brought before this court to answer the

federal charges. I ordered the United States to respond to the Motion. The Response states:

[The defendant’s] alleged state offenses were conducted after his

alleged federal gun and drug violations. Since defendant

Johnson’s state offenses occurred after his alleged federal gun and

drug charges, the government moves this Court to deny defendant

Johnson’s Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Response [Doc. # 6] at p. 1.

I take from this that the defendant is held in state custody for offenses other than (and

unrelated to) his federal charges. The Response fails to address why the pendency of those later

Case 1:11-cr-00349-MSK Document 7 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

state charges necessarily requires that the defendant remain in state custody and not be brought

here to answer the federal charges, or how the decision is made as to which charges will be

prosecuted first. Consequently, I require a further and more complete explanation as to why the

state charges should proceed first and why the defendant should not be brought here at this time

to answer the federal charges.

IT IS ORDERED that the United States shall file supplemental briefing on the issue by

October 26, 2011.

Dated October 19, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00349-MSK Document 7 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix

Civil Action No.: 11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM FTR - Reporter Deck - Courtroom C-204

Byron G. Rogers United States 

Courthouse 

Date: December 3, 2012 Courtroom Deputy, Monique Wiles 

ADAMS COUNTY, BOARD OF COUNTY Caleb Durling

 COMMISSIONERS Ellie Lockwood

Plaintiff(s),

v.

LELAND ASAY Pro Se (Not Present)

SAMUEL VIDAL GOMEZ Pro Se (Not Present)

JERRY LEE RHEA Craig D. Johnson

DENNIS GLENN COEN Not Present

QUALITY PAVING CO. Frank Brittin Clayton, III

Defendant(s).

COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: STATUS CONFERENCE

Court in session: 1:39 p.m.

Court calls case. Appearance of counsel.

This matter is before the Court for a Status Conference.

It is ORDERED: Defendant Jerry Lee Rhea’s Motion for Stay and Protective

Order [Doc. No. 111, filed 10/24/2012] is TAKEN UNDER

ADVISEMENT. The Court will issue a written order in due course.

HEARING CONCLUDED. 

Court in recess: 1:57 p.m.

Total In-Court Time: 18 minutes

To order a transcript of this hearing, please contact Avery Woods Reporting (303)825-6119.

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 118 Filed 12/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50336 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
VICTOR MENDOZA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:10

- CR

- 343

- 1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
Victor Mendoza challenges the 36

- month sentence of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release for his 20 11 conviction for possessing with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing heroin within 1,000 feet of a school. He contends that the district court failed to adequately explain its revocation sentence, which exceeded the range provided in the policy statements of the Sentencing Guidelines.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 17, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50336 Document: 00515347210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2020No. 19

- 50336

2 Because t his claim of procedural error was not raised in the district court, we review it only for plain error. See United States v. Kippers , 685 F.3d 491, 49 7 (5th Cir. 2012)

. T o establish plain error, Mendoza must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id

. Mendoza is unable to make such a showing. Specifically, he has not
established that any deficiency in the district court’s explanation affected his substantial rights, as he has not shown that a more detailed explanation would
have resulted in a different sentence. See United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 26 2

- 6 3 (5th Cir. 2009). Indeed, Mendoza requested that the district court impose the 36

- month sentence. And the district court followed the Guidelines in ordering that the sentence run consecutively to any state sentence he was serving. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Thus, he has not demonstrated that the district court’s explanation for the sentence was so insufficient as to rise to the level of reversible plain error. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50336 Document: 00515347210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2020
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

Authority:Title 10, United States Code, Section 2869(d)(1). 

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies excess Federal property under the administrative jurisdiction of the United States Air Force that the Air Force intends to exchange for military construction beneficial to the Air Force. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Sam Rupe, Office of the Air Force General Counsel (SAF/GCN-RPO), 143 Billy Mitchell Blvd., Suite 1, San Antonio, TX 78226-1816; telephone (210) 925-0227 (this telephone number is not toll-free). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2869(d)(1), the Air Force is publishing this Notice to identify Federal real property that the Air Force intends to dispose of in exchange for military construction beneficial to the Air Force. 

*Description of the Air Force property:*                     Buckley Annex CO.                 

*Property Number:*

*Status:*                     Excess.                 

*Comments:*                     Buckley Annex is located on the western side of the former Lowry AFB and currently houses the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC). In 2005, BRAC legislation directed the relocation of ARPC to Buckley AFB and the realignment of DFAS, resulting in the ultimate closure of the site. The approximate 70 acre parcel contains one 605,000 Square Foot building and several smaller buildings to include a warehouse and office building located at 6760 E. Irvington Pl., in the City and County of Denver.                 

*Military construction sought:*                     After completion of a competitive bid process, the Air Force will enter into an agreement with the selected offeror/property recipient to construct military construction projects. The specific projects that will be constructed will depend on the amount of construction value offered by the prospective property recipient.                 

Bao-Anh Trinh, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8-22348 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Travis Hill, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 310]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), imposed August 19, 2004, upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years and the imposition of a mandatory surcharge of $210 and a DNA databank fee of $50.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, on the law, by vacating the imposition of the DNA databank fee; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

As the People concede, since the crime was committed before the effective date of the legislation providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee *(see*Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v]), that fee should not have been imposed by the Supreme Court herein *(see People v Zsolt,*17 AD3d 150 [2005]; *People v Mullins,*13 AD3d 192 [2004]; *People v Taylor,*10 AD3d 559 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Cozier, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Jefferies Group, Inc.

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
2-94727 dated December 6, 1984; No. 33-17065 dated September 8, 1987; No.
33-19741 dated January 21, 1998; No. 33-64318 dated May 27, 1993; No. 33-64490
dated June 15, 1993; No. 33-52139 dated February 3, 1994; No. 33-54373 dated
June 30, 1994. No. 33-02489 dated April 12, 1996, and No. 333-84079 dated July
29, 1999, all on Form S-8, and No. 33-54265 dated July 14, 1994, and No.
33-40263 dated December 5, 1997, both on Form S-4 of Jefferies Group, Inc. of
our report dated January 18, 2000, relating to the consolidated statements of
financial condition of Jefferies Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the December 31, 1999
annual report on Form 10-K of Jefferies Group, Inc.


                                             KPMG LLP


Los Angeles, California
March 27, 2000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-88-01,02-SM

Anthony Carder,

Deborah Carder

O R D E R

Defendant Deborah Carder's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document

no. 20) is granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2008 trial period.

Defendants Carder shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than January 3,

2008 . On the filing of such waivers, the continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account

Case 1:07-cr-00088-SM Document 21 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 2
2

the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: January 22, 2008 at 4:30 PM 

Jury Selection: February 5, 2008 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

December 21, 2007 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: William Morse, Esq.

 Steven Gordon, Esq.

 William Christie, Esq.

 Michael Sheehan, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00088-SM Document 21 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2
|   | 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. |
|--------|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |   |                                       |   |
|--------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| May 16, 2011 |   | /s/ J. Bryant Kirkland III                 |   |
|         |   | J. Bryant Kirkland III                     |   |
|         |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... 32 4 6 8 14 .082 .010 .015 .021 .034

2004...... 18 1 5 2 10 .044 .003 .012 .005 .021

2005...... 17 2 11 4 0 .039 .005 .024 .009 .000

2006...... 20 2 6 1 12 .042 .003 .012 .002 .023

2007...... 8 -3 0 5 6 .015 -.006 .000 .009 .011

2008...... 54 5 8 12 29 .093 .008 .013 .020 .046

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: January 12, 2017 106735 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK, 

Respondent, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILFREDO DEJESUS, 

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: December 13, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Thuillez, Ford, Gold, Butler & Monroe, LLP, Albany (Kelly

M. Monroe of counsel), for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L.

Grome of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.),

rendered May 8, 2013 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon

his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree. 

In satisfaction of a 12-count indictment, defendant pleaded

guilty to the reduced charge of burglary in the second degree and

waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced in accordance with

the plea agreement to a prison term of six years followed by five

years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals. 

Defendant's sole contention is that his plea was factually

deficient in that it failed to establish the element of intent

necessary for a conviction of burglary in the second degree. 
-2- 106735 

Defendant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea is

precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal, which we find was

knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered (see People v

Zakrzewski, 140 AD3d 1536, 1537 [2016]; People v Devault, 124

AD3d 1140, 1141 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 989 [2015]; People v

Reynolds, 117 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2014]). Moreover, the issue is

not preserved for our review as the record does not reflect that

defendant made any postallocution motion to withdraw his plea,

and no statements made during the plea colloquy warrant the

application of the narrow exception to the preservation

requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988];

People v Butler, 134 AD3d 1349, 1350 [2015], lvs denied 27 NY3d

962, 963 [2016]; People v Mayo, 130 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2015]).

Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court