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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

**FORM 10-K**

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006

or

o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from             to            

Commission File No. 0-15279

 
|   | **GENERAL COMMUNICATION, INC.**                        |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) |   |

 
|   | **State of Alaska**             |   | **92-0072737**      |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   | (State or other jurisdiction of |   | (I.R.S Employer     |   |
|   | incorporation or organization)  |   | Identification No.) |   |

 
|   |                                     | **2550 Denali Street** |       |      |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------|-----------|--------|
|   |                                     | **Suite 1000**         |       |      |   |
|   |                                     | **Anchorage, Alaska**  |       | **99503** |   |
|   | (Address of principal executive offices) |                   | (Zip Code) |      |
|        |                                          |                        |            |           |        |  |

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (907) 868-5600

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:  None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:

 
|   | Class A common stock |   | Class B common stock |   |
|--------|----------------------|--------|----------------------|--------|
|   | (Title of class)     |   | (Title of class)     |   |

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes o   No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

Yes o   No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes x   No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.            o

 

 

1

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 1, 2017

No. 04-17-00620-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L. ET AL., CHILDREN,

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-2158-CV

Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s motion for extension of time to file their brief is granted. The appellant’s 

brief is due on November 20, 2017.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of November, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Denise Bradley

Judge, 262nd District Court

1201 Franklin

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-6961

WR-82,619-01 and 86,619-02

In the

Court ofCriminal Appeals

Oi lexas

Nos. 1055437-Aand 1042235-A

In the 262nd District Court

ofHarris County, Texas

Ex parte Edward Hinojosa

hlMYl'OlM

(DOUBT OFCRIMINAL APPEAL'

MAY 07 2015

AMA§.©§ta3G!@?k

Trial Court's Request for Extension

The 262nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, with the Honorable

Denise Bradley, moves the Court of Criminal Appeals to grant an extension

of time to resolve the claims in the instant writ and forward the writ record

to the Court pursuant to Rule 73.4.5 and would show the following:

I.

Procedural History

Edward Hinojosa , the applicant, is confined pursuant to the judgment

and sentence of the 262nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, having
been convicted of delivery of cocaine and bail jumping on June 19, 2006 in

cause numbers 1042235 and 1055437. The applicant entered a guilty plea

without an agreed recommendation in both cases, and the court assessed

punishment at thirty (30) years and ten (10) years confinement in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division in the delivery and

bail jumping cases respectively. No direct appeal was filed.

The applicant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on July 30, 2009.

The State was served with the application on August 4, 2009 and the court

signed a motion to designate issues on August 31, 2009. On November 17,

2014, the court signed the State's proposed findings of facts and conclusions

oflaw recommending that the applicant's writ be dismissed.

On February 25, 2015, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the

case to the trial court to resolve the issues of whether the applicant was

denied effective assistance of trial counsel. The State filed its Amended

Proposed Motion to Designate Issues and Order for Filing Affidavits on

March 9, 2015.

II.

On March 11, 2015, the 262nd District Court ordered trial counsel,

Matthew Leeper and Jesus Canales, to file affidavits summarizing their

actions as counsel for the applicant and responding to the applicant's
allegations of ineffective assistance. The affidavits were due on March 31,

2015. Pursuant to order for remand, the deadline for the 262nd District Court

to resolve these issues was April 25, 2015. The deadline for forwarding

findings to the Court of Criminal Appeals is May 25, 2015.

Accordingly, this Court requests additional time in order to resolve

the instant claims, determine whether the applicant is indigent, prepare

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the Court's

consideration. This Court's request is not intended to unduly delay

proceedings in the instant cause.

III.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court respectfully

requests that the Court of Criminal Appeals allow until July 25, 2015 to

forward the writ record in the instant cause.

SIGNED this 1M day ofApfil, 2015.

WM^'

^j^b^enise Bradle}

262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas
§ 56.10008 Riding tramways. Persons other than maintenance persons shall not ride aerial tramways unless the following features are provided: ( a ) Two independent brakes, each capable of holding the maximum load;
( b ) Direct communication between terminals;
( c ) Power drives with emergency power available in case of primary power failure; and
( d ) Buckets equipped with positive locks to prevent accidental tripping or dumping.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

EVANGELOS DIMITRIOS SOUKAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-35539

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01738-JLR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Evangelos Dimitrios Soukas appeals from the district

court’s order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

SEP 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-35539

Soukas contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective because she did

not challenge the district court’s failure to calculate Soukas’ criminal history

category on direct appeal. In light of the district court’s comments at sentencing,

Soukas cannot show “a reasonable probability that he would have received a

different sentence” but for the district court’s failure to calculate his criminal

history category. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008)

(applying plain error analysis where counsel failed to object to procedural error at

sentencing). Accordingly, Soukas cannot show a reasonable probability that he

would have prevailed on direct appeal, and his ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel claim fails. See Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1989). 

AFFIRMED.
### §1910. Implementation of audit agreements

#### (a) Transmission of annual financial statement

Upon receipt of the annual financial statement described in sections 1902(c)(4) and 1903(m)(4) of this title, the President shall promptly transmit a copy of such statement to the Congress.

#### (b) Annual audits by President

(1) The President shall cause an annual audit to be conducted of the annual financial statements described in sections 1902(c)(4) and 1903(m)(4) of this title. Such audit shall be conducted in accordance with the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States. Such audit shall be submitted to the Congress not later than 180 days after the end of the United States fiscal year.

(2) The President shall develop and implement procedures to carry out such audits. Such procedures shall include the matters described in sections 1902(c)(2) and 1903(m)(2) of this title.

#### (c) Authority of GAO

The Comptroller General of the United States shall have the authority to conduct the audits referred to in sections 1902(c)(1) and 1903(m)(1) of this title.

(Pub. L. 99–239, title I, §110, Jan. 14, 1986, 99 Stat. 1798.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions in subsec. (b) of this section relating to the requirement that the annual audit be submitted to Congress, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and the 13th item on page 37 of House Document No. 103–7.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsProbabilistic Damage Characterization Using the Computationally-Efficient Bayesian ApproachThis work presents a computationally-ecient approach for damage determination that quanti es uncertainty in the provided diagnosis. Given strain sensor data that are polluted with measurement errors, Bayesian inference is used to estimate the location, size, and orientation of damage. This approach uses Bayes' Theorem to combine any prior knowledge an analyst may have about the nature of the damage with information provided implicitly by the strain sensor data to form a posterior probability distribution over possible damage states. The unknown damage parameters are then estimated based on samples drawn numerically from this distribution using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling algorithm. Several modi cations are made to the traditional Bayesian inference approach to provide signi cant computational speedup. First, an ecient surrogate model is constructed using sparse grid interpolation to replace a costly nite element model that must otherwise be evaluated for each sample drawn with MCMC. Next, the standard Bayesian posterior distribution is modi ed using a weighted likelihood formulation, which is shown to improve the convergence of the sampling process. Finally, a robust MCMC algorithm, Delayed Rejection Adaptive Metropolis (DRAM), is adopted to sample the probability distribution more eciently. Numerical examples demonstrate that the proposed framework e ectively provides damage estimates with uncertainty quanti cation and can yield orders of magnitude speedup over standard Bayesian approaches.Document ID20160005898Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsWarner, James E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Hochhalter, Jacob D.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 6, 2016Publication DateMarch 1, 2016Subject CategoryQuality Assurance And ReliabilityStructural MechanicsMathematical And Computer Sciences (General)Report/Patent NumberNF1676L-23621NASA/TP-2016-219169L-20667Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 694478.02.93.02.14.58.23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160005898.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 1207.1 Required recordkeeping. ( a ) ONRR uses the information collected to determine a proper transportation allowance for the cost of transporting royalty oil from the lease to a delivery point remote from the lease. The information is required so that the lessee may obtain a benefit under the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, 30 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ONRR identifies the approved OMB control number in 30 CFR 1210.10.
( b ) Send comments regarding the burden estimates or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Attention: Rules & Regs Team, OMB Control Number 1012-0002, P.O. Box 25165, Denver, CO 80225-0165.
[78 FR 30204, May 22, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1407 How do I respond to the letter of notification? You have 30 calendar days after you receive the Reviewing Officer's letter to either: ( a ) Request, in writing, a meeting with the Reviewing Officer;
( b ) Submit additional information; or
( c ) Pay the proposed civil penalty.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE JUDGE GROUP, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          53,346
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,253,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                   962,195
<INVENTORY>                                    125,483
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,711,649
<PP&E>                                       4,943,766
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,852,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,624,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,746,097
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       139,843
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,624,306
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            86,712,996
<CGS>                                       57,730,677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               83,169,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               547,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               659,417
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             551,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,996,144
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,241,186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,754,958
<DISCONTINUED>                             (8,415,058)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,660,100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.49)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 80779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27439]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-300-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Capacity 
Release Agreement--12/4/2020 to be effective 12/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/20.
    Docket Numbers: RP21-301-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Yankee Gas 
510802 eff 12-5-2020 to be effective 12/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 8, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27439 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Wilburn, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County -Court, Queens County, dated June 17, 1959', which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered September 5, 1956, convicting him, after a jury trial, of feloniously selling a narcotic drug, and imposing sentence. The judgment of conviction was affirmed *(People*v. *Wilburn,*4 A D 2d 698). The application was made on the grounds of alleged suppression of evidence, denial of the right to be confronted with witnesses, and uncorroborated testimony. Order affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 285.118 What are my appeal rights? ( a ) Any party adversely affected by a final decision issued by BSEE under this part may appeal that decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), under 30 CFR part 290 and 43 CFR part 4, subpart E.
( b ) Any final decision will remain in full force and effect during the pendency of an appeal unless a stay is granted pursuant to 43 CFR part 4.
[89 FR 42714, May 15, 2024]
(May 10, 1962)

#### In the Matter of William Hirscher, on His Own Behalf, and on Behalf of All Other Tenants of 1000 Grand Concourse, The Bronx, New York, Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent, and 1000 Realty Co., Intervenor-Respondent.

Order entered on July 3, 1961, dismissing a petition to review and annul the determination of the State Rent Administrator, modified on the facts and the law to the extent of eliminating from the determination of the Administrator the provision that the rent increases be made retroactive for a six months’ period, i.e., to January 29, 1960 and as so modified is affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant. The maintenance of essential services is a prerequisite for obtaining a rent increase. But, in addition, the State Administrator may deny retroactivity to an increase if there is a serious deficiency in services. *(Matter of Halperin*v. Caputa, 10 A D 2d 286, 290, *760affd. 8 N Y 2d 916.) The record shows that as late as June 15, 1960, an inspection disclosed that many of the intercom telephones from the apartments to the lobby were not in working order. Even though the Administrator may have been warranted in finding that the repairs of July 8, 1960 sufficiently eliminated the deficiencies, it was arbitrary and unreasonable to allow increases in rent for the period during which the intercom system was apparently not operating. The rent increases should, therefore, not have been made effective until July 29, 1960, the date of the Local Rent Administrator’s order. Concur — Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.; Rabin, J. P., and Steuer, J., dissent in the following memorandum: We dissent from so much of the order as modifies the order below, and would affirm the order in its entirety. The modification vacates the retroactive application of the order of the State Rent Administrator on the ground that essential services were not being supplied at the date of the application. The respect in which it is claimed that such services were lacking is that the intercom telephones did not function properly. The maintenance of essential services does not require that at all times every part or feature of the multiple dwelling should be in proper working order. Breakdowns of machinery or mechanical appliances do occur, other parts of the building erode and require replacement. The mere happening of such incidents is no basis for a finding that essential services are not being maintained. It is only when repair or replacement is unreasonably neglected that such a finding is warranted. Here the Administrator could well have found that the difficulties with the intercom system were not the result of unreasonable neglect but merely conditions which required the services of repair or maintenance personnel and which received attention within a reasonable time. In our opinion the record is sufficient to sustain this view which is implicit in the Administrator’s order.