alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re VALIDATION OF $80,000.00 GENERAL OBLIGATION AIRPORT BONDS, SERIES 1976 COVINGTON COUNTY, Mississippi. Robert McPHAIL v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF COVINGTON COUNTY, Mississippi.

No. 50174.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 24, 1977.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Covington County; J. W. Walker, Chancellor.

*1346Cupit & Maxey, John L. Maxey, II, Jackson, for appellant.

John K. Keyes, Collins, William A. Bacon, State Bond Atty., Bacon, Smith & Jernigan, Jackson, Robert B. Henderson, Natchez, for appellee.

Before INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Interest of G. D., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-895.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 21, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Dennis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 661.
SERVED: August 10? 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

EARTH SCIENCE PRODUCTS CORP 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2014- 1114 

-----------

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") filed a Complaint 

dated January 2, 2015. Earth Science Products Corp. (hereinafter ''Respondent'') filed a Request 

tor Hearing/Answer dated December 22, 2014. 

2015. 

Respondent tiled a Request to withdraw Request tor Hearing/ Answer dated March 16, 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: ''At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpmt with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, Respondent having withdrawn * Request tor Hearing/ Answer, it be and 

is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's withdrawal of Request tor Hearing be and is hereby granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

Shane Kennedy, President 

Earth Science Products Corp., Re.~pondenl 

23735 NE Airport Rd. 

Aurora, OR 97002 

TEL: 503-678-1216 

FAX: 503-678-3374 

David Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave., S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227- I 847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law .Judf!e 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1114 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building----Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Colonial
  Commercial Corp. (the "Company") for the three months and six months ended
  June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
  hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard Korn, Chief Executive Officer of the
  Company, certify, pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
  section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


         (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.




  By: /S/ BERNARD KORN
      ----------------

  Name:  BERNARD KORN
         --------------------
         Chief Executive Officer

  February 19, 2004



<PAGE>
Natural Gas Cost ($/MMBtu) = $ 5.00

Interest Rate 9.06%

FF Service Life 30

Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) = 0.09782

Natural Gas

Advanced NGCC Advanced Turbine Conventional NGCC

Lead time (years) 3 2 3

Base Overnight Cost in 2012 (2011 $/kW) 931 632 858

Project Contingency Factor 1.08 1.05 1.05

Technical Optimism Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total Overnight Costs (2011 $/kW) 1,005 664 901

Conversion Factor to "As Spent" 1.07 1.05 1.07

Total As Spent Capital (2011 $/kW) 1,080 695 967

Risk Premium 1.00 1.00 1.00

Additional Capital Charge 0.00 0.00 0.00

CO2 Emissions Rate (lb/MMBtu) 118 118 118

Carbon Capture 0% 0% 0%

Gross Power Output (kW)

Auxillary Power Requirements (kW)

Net Power Output (kW) 400,000 210,000 620,000

Capacity Factor = 14.6% 14.6% 14.6%

Annual Generation (MWhnet) 511,753 268,670 793,218

Gross Plant HHV Efficiency

Net Plant HHV Efficiency 53.1% 35.0% 48.4%

CO2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross)

CO2 Emissions (lb/MWhnet) 759 1,151 832

SO2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross)

SO2 Emissions (lb/MWhnet)

NOX Emissions (lb/MWhgross)

NOX Emissions (lb/MWhnet)

PM Emissions (lb/MWhgross)

PM Emissions (lb/MWhnet)

Hg Emissions (lb/MWhgross)

Hg Emissions (lb/MWhnet)

Water Consumption (gpm/MWnet)

 CO2 TS&M Costs (mills/kWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Fuel Costs (mills/kWh) 32.2 48.8 35.3

 Variable Costs (mills/kWh) 3.21 10.19 3.54

 Fixed Costs (mills/kWh) 11.80 5.41 10.11

 Capital Costs (mills/kWh) 82.6 53.1 74.0

COE (mills/kWh) 129.7 117.5 122.9

COE w/ Benefits (mills/kWh)
Capacity Factor for Equivalent COE

Natural gas Prce ($/MMBtu) Advanced CC = Advanced SC Advanced CC = Conventional CC

Conventional Turbine $ 5.00 22.2% 43.8%

2 $ 5.50 20.7% 40.0%

910 $ 6.00 19.5% 37.1%

1.05 $ 6.50 18.3% 34.3%

1.00 $ 6.75 17.8% 33.2%

956 $ 7.00 17.3% 32.1%

1.05 $ 8.25 15.2% 27.6%

1,000

1.00

0.00

118

0%

85,000

14.6%

108,748

31.4%

1,280

0.0

54.3

15.18

5.64

76.5

151.6
Conventional CC = Advanced SC

18.5%

17.4%

16.3%

15.4%

15.0%

14.6%

12.9%
#### ANGLO AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION CO. v. BENEDICT.

No. 39217.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
#### Esteban RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Steve Rodriguez, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-447.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1973.

Law Offices of Henry Gonzalez, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and John A. Zebedec, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This court’s prior opinion, 1972, 257 So.2d 81, reversing the judgment against Rodriguez, was quashed by the Supreme Court. State v. Rodriguez, Fla.1973, 276 So.2d 5. The Supreme Court remanded to us for consideration of other points on appeal not dealt with in our earlier opinion. A second review indicates that such error as there is in the record is harmless. Fla. Stat. § 924.33 (1971), F.S.A.

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
35.1




SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT











I,
Theodore H. Bunting, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of
Entergy Texas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), certify that:




(a) A
review of the Servicer's activities during the reporting period covered by this
Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Transition
Property Servicing Agreement dated as of November 6, 2009 between Entergy Texas
Restoration Funding, LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the
“Servicing Agreement”) has been made under my supervision.




(b) To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all
of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects
throughout the reporting period.






Date:
March 29, 2010






Entergy
Texas, Inc., as servicer




By:   /s/ Theodore H. Bunting,
Jr.


Name:  Theodore
H. Bunting, Jr.


Title:  Senior
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
#### Robert T. WATT, Appellant, v. BILL BRANCH CHEVROLET, INC., Appellee.

No. 73-1083.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1974.

*57Harry A. Blair, Fort Myers, for appellant.

Hugh E. Starnes, Fort Myers, for appel-lee.

ORDER DENYING REHEARING

MANN, Chief Judge.

We granted a motion to dismiss an appeal improvidently taken from an order of the Circuit Court dismissing a counterclaim within the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction but brought in an action originally filed in the County Court for a sum lower than the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. We are now asked to reconsider our action because the appellant fears that his right to appeal will be lost. We decline to do so. His right of appeal is preserved in any case by the Florida Constitution, Article V, §§ 3, 4, 5, F.S.A.

The appellant states that confusion exists now because the Circuit Court has transferred the cause back to the County Court, leaving an appeal to be taken to the Circuit Court eventually which would submit the question which he brought here to the very court which decided it. Having once entertained jurisdiction on a good faith claim which causes the action to be transferred to the Circuit Court, that court should have retained jurisdiction. National Juice Corporation v. Gilligan, Fla. 1953, 63 So.2d 914; Rule 1.170(j) Fla.R.Civ.R, 30 F.S.A. Our action is without prejudice to further proceedings in the light of this opinion.

The appeal will stand dismissed and the petition for rehearing is denied.

BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
#### William L. BROOKS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 50544.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 16, 1978.

Gordon W. Taylor, Miami, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

*776PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ. Upon further consideration of the cause, we conclude that no direct conflict of decisions exists as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and KARL, JJ., concur.

HATCHETT, J., dissents with an opinion.

BOYD, J., dissents and concurs with HATCHETT, J.

HATCHETT, Justice,

dissenting.

I would treat as petition for writ of habe-as corpus under the dictates of Article V, Section 2(a), Florida Constitution, that “no cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought.”

BOYD, J., concurs.
Exhibit 32(b)
 
 
 This Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such filing.
 
 
 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
 of Title 18 of the United States Code
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Columbus Southern Power Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian X. Tierney, the chief financial officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Brian X. Tierney
 Brian X. Tierney
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 April 30, 2010
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOTIFICATIONOFLATE RECORD
Court ofAppeals No. 04-15-00040-CV Trial Court Style: MICHAEL MIDDLETON 

## vs. TEMPLETON MORTGAGE CORPORATION, JERRY W. CORBIN, TRUSTEE, B.D. ADKINS, TRUSTEE, PATTY CORBIN, TRUSTEE, AND ENOS HAMPTON, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OFTHE ESTATE OF BETTY G. ROBINSON
Trial Court No.: 10-422 I am the official responsible for preparingthe Clerk's Record and or Supplement in the above referenced appeal. The record is due on Febrnaiy 12, 2014. This record will contain approximately 411 pages. I am unable to file the record by the above date because ofa heavier than normal workload which is due to vacancies oftwo Deputy Clerkpositions. Ihavejust this date forwarded a Bill ofCosts to Appellant's counsel for the cost ofthis record. Upon receipt ofpayment, I will immediately file the record. I anticipate payment to be received in the near future and, therefore, anticipate having the record filed on or before February 27, 2014. I, as the undersigned court official, ce11ify that a copy ofthis Notification ofLate Record has been mailed to the attorneys ofrecord.
Date: Februaiy 12, 2015

State ofTexas § County ofKendall § 

# c;;**tA/~&*"-e/l:cj**·-v__/ Susan Jackson District Clerk, Kendall County, Texas

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Kay R. Pugh, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same for the reasons expressed therein. 

# ,/1 

# C , . Date: 

# tf2r2-l2-dc!//S Signature:

# /J)~~' DarleneHerrin County Clerk, Kendall County, Texas
#### John E. GUILLORY, Jr. v. COCKRELL CORPORATION et al.

No. 8195.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 15, 1970.

*325Harold J. Rhodes and Charles Culotta, Jr., Berwick, for appellant.

Edward W. Abell, Jr., of Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe, Lafayette, for appellees.

Before LANDRY, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

ON SHOW CAUSE ORDER

BLANCHE, Judge.

Judgment was rendered by the trial court on November 28, 1969, dismissing plaintiff’s suit at plaintiff’s costs. Thereafter he filed a motion for an appeal and the order signed by the trial judge granted plaintiff-appellant a suspensive and devolutive appeal returnable to this court on the 9th day of February, 1970, on furnishing bond of $150. After the record was lodged here, it was noted that the suspensive appeal bond was not timely filed and we directed appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed.

While the record reveals that the appeal bond was not timely filed for the purposes of taking a suspensive appeal, the appeal bond was filed on January 23, 1970, and thus within the time provided for the taking of a devolutive appeal in accordance with the provisions of LSA-C.C.P. art. 2087.

Accordingly, the rule issued herein to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed is recalled and set aside.

It is ordered that defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted as to the suspensive appeal taken herein by plaintiff but denied as regards plaintiff’s devolutive appeal.

It is further ordered that this appeal be maintained as a devolutive appeal only.

Rule recalled and set aside, motion to dismiss granted as to suspensive appeal but denied as to devolutive appeal, and devolu-five appeal maintained.
# United States Court of Appeals F OR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



# ____________ At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28 th day of May , two thousand twenty one. P resent: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge , GUIDO CALABRESI , ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges

.

____________________________________________ People of the State of New York by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York , P laintiff

–

Appellant

— Cross –Appellee , 18 -2454- cv 18-2623- cv v. 18-2627- cv 18-2630- cv K enneth Griepp, Ronald George, Patricia Musco, Ranville Thomas , Osayinwense Okuonghae, Anne Kaminsky, Brian George, Sharon Richards, Deborah M. Ryan, Angela Braxton, Jasmine LaLande, Prisca Joseph, Scott Fitchett, Jr., Defendants–Appell ees

— Cross –Appellants ,

____________________________________________ T he petitions for rehearing are GRANTED. The panel hereby VACATES its previous opinion. Accordingly, the decision of the district court remains in place.
F OR THE COURT: C atherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 

# 18-2454 People of the State of New York v. Greipp
575 Lexington Ave
4th Floor New York, NY 10022


P: (866) 928-
5070


F: (516) 223-2894


A publicly-traded
company stock symbol HISP


 


 


 


January 24, 2018


 


Shircoo, Inc.


2350 E. Allview Terrace


Los Angeles, California
90068


 


 


Re: Payoff Agreement


 


 


Gentlemen:


 


In consideration for the agreement
of Shircoo, Inc. (“Shircoo”) to purchase $125,000 of Secured Convertible Promissory Notes in the form of Exhibit
A attached hereto (“Notes”), which Notes are being issued pursuant to a Note Purchase Agreement attached
hereto as Exhibit B (“NPA”), Hispanica International Delights of America, Inc. (the “Company”)
agrees to remit and pay to Shircoo the first $125,000 in cash proceeds received by the Company from third parties unaffiliated
with Shircoo, pursuant to the terms of the NPA (the “Cash Payment”), which Cash Payment shall be used to reduce
the amount due Shircoo under the terms of the Secured Promissory Note, dated November 3, 2017, issued by the Company to Shircoo,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.


 


As additional consideration
for the purchase by Shircoo of the Notes, without the written consent of Shircoo, the Company agrees not to issue any shares of
the Company’s common stock, $0.001 par value (“Common Stock”), or any securities exercisable or convertible
into shares of Common Stock, unless and until the Cash Payment has been made in full; provided, however, nothing contained
herein shall prevent the Company from being able to issue shares of Common Stock, or securities exercisable or convertible into
shares of Common Stock, where such issuance is required under terms of written or oral agreements by and between the Company that
are executed prior to the date of this agreement.




    	 



    	 



    

Page 2


 


 


 


 


If the above accurately
reflects your understanding of our agreement with respect to Shircoo’s participation in the offering of Notes contemplated
by the NPA, please execute this Payoff Agreement in the space set forth below.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


Hispanica International Delights of America, Inc.


 


 


 


By:/s/ Fernando Oswald Leonzo Name:Fernando
Oswaldo Leonzo


Title:Chief Executive Officer &
Chairman
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. In the Interest of V. D. B., a child, Respondent.

No. 42465.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Joseph S. Farley, Jr., of Mahon & Mahon, ■Jacksonville, for respondent.

Carling H. Stedman, for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc., Miami, as amicus curiae.

*7PER CURIAM.

This is a conflict jurisdiction review of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in the case entitled In Interest of V.D.B., a child v. State of Florida, 261 So.2d 857.

The question for decision is the standard of proof required in the adjudicatory phase of a child delinquency proceeding in a juvenile court in Florida in order to adjudge a child to be delinquent where the act of delinquency charged is one which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult.

There is a conflict of decisions upon the stated question in Florida requiring us to exercise our conflict jurisdiction to resolve conflict. The trial judge in this case, and the Third District Court of Appeal in the case of In the Interest of A. J., 241 So.2d 439, hold that the standard of proof to adjudicate a juvenile a delinquent for having committed an offense which if committed by an adult would constitute a crime is the “preponderance of evidence.” The First District Court of Appeal disagrees, and has reversed the trial court in this case. The First District Court holds that the proper standard of proof is that of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

We have carefully studied the matter and conclude, as did the First District Court of Appeal, that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, and V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972), control and the standard of proof required in a case of this kind is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” See also, State v. R.E.F., a Juvenile, Fla. App., 251 So.2d 672.

Further elaboration upon the question appears unnecessary since In re Winship and V. v. City of New York, supra, and the cited District Courts of Appeal cases explicate fully the legal principles involved.

The petition for writ of certiorari is discharged.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
### AAA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 20-0599

RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Petitioner,

v. JIM SALMONSEN,Acting Warden, Montana State Prison,

Respondent. 

### DEC 2 9 2020

Bowen Greenwood r- ,Ierk of Suprerne Court cyars. -,f rvInntana ORDER

Representing himself,Ryan Patrick Sullivan has filed aPetition for a Writ ofHabeas Corpus,indicating many reasons why his incarceration is illegal. He lists his three criminal cases along with various alleged error,such as illegal search and seizure,false statements, and right to speedy trial violation. Sullivan concludes that he should be released from prison because he has served two years ofincarceration and eight months on probation and because It]ime has been well served." This Court recently granted Sullivan's Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal concerning the Yellowstone County District Court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief. See Sullivan v. State,No.DA 20-0558,Petition filed Nov. 19,2020. Upon review of this Court's docket, we observe that Sullivan has two appeals pending for his recent convictions. Counsel for Sullivan filed a Notices of Appeal on December 9, 2020. State v. Sullivan, No. DA 20-0588 (for Yellowstone County Cause No. DC 18-321) and State v. Sullivan, No. DA 20-0589 (for Yellowstone County Cause No. DC 19-0829). Under Montana law, Sullivan's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not a separate proceeding during the pendency ofhis appeal. An appeal is the proper forurn in which to Iitigate issues arising from his conviction and sentence. State v. Wright,2001 MT 282,In 36-37, 307 Mont.349,42P.3d 753. Habeas corpus does not offer an alternative remedy to a direct appeal, nor does it supplement the appellate process. 12/29/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0599Without considering the merits. we must dismiss this petition. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Sullivan's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to Tim Fox,Attorney General; to Scott D.Twito,Yellowstone County Attorney;to Chad M. Wright,Appellate Defender Division;to counscl ofrecord,and to Ryan Patrick Sullivan personally. DATED this 11 1/

` day ofDecernber,2020.

ChiefJustice