Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Red Rock had not shown that it would be offering service to an area that was either unserved or under-served. Second Order, 10 F.C.C.R. at 5991. Contrary to Red Rock’s assertion, the FCC did not state that provision of service to unserved or underserved areas is a prerequisite to a waiver. It merely noted that when an applicant cites “service” as a factor supporting a waiver, “the test ... is whether the proposal will provide service to listeners who currently lack it.” Id. As the FCC points out, every applicant for a new station will provide a new service to listeners within its reach. Therefore, we cannot fault the Commission for discounting the public interest value of a new station that does not reach areas that currently have little or no service. Cf. WAIT Radio, 459 F.2d at 1209 (<HOLDING>). The Commission dismissed KGMN’s failure to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding commission may take into account in considering waiver of clear channel rules whether applicant would offer service to an area lacking it (B) holding that to prove ineffectiveness where defendant rejected plea offer upon advice of counsel defendant must show he would have accepted the offer had counsel advised correctly the state would not have withdrawn its offer the court would have accepted the offer and the resulting sentence would have been less severe (C) holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell (D) holding that it may not (E) holding that the governments take it or leave it plea offer including a plea waiver did not violate due process because the defendant had several weeks to consider the offer and this timeframe was not problematic
Output (English): holding that the governments take it or leave it plea offer including a plea waiver did not violate due process because the defendant had several weeks to consider the offer and this timeframe was not problematic