alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
255 La. 284

#### Percy CLARK v. Bryan CLEMMONS, Sheriff, East Baton Rouge Parish.

No. 50361.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1970.

In re: Percy Clark applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The ruling complained of is correct.
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 4th QUARTER 2009

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 9/24 9/28 10/1 22.00 30.00 29.00 87.00 -6.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 10/1 10/5 10/8 24.00 30.00 30.00 82.00 2.00

10/8 10/13 10/15 24.00 30.00 30.00 74.00 10.00

10/15 10/19 10/22 24.00 30.00 30.00 27.00 96.00 15.00

10/22 10/26 10/29 28.00 29.00 30.00 82.00 5.00

10/29 11/2 11/5 28.00 29.00 30.00 83.00 4.00

11/5 11/9 11/12 26.00 28.00 29.00 86.00 -3.00

11/12 11/16 11/19 26.00 27.00 28.00 27.00 106.00 2.00

11/19 11/23 11/27 25.00 27.00 28.00 89.00 -9.00

11/25 11/30 12/3 25.00 27.00 27.00 89.00 -10.00

12/3 12/7 12/10 23.00 27.00 27.00 86.00 -9.00

12/10 12/14 12/17 22.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 107.00 -4.00

12/17 12/21 12/24 18.00 27.00 27.00 84.00 -12.00

12/24 12/28 12/31 18.00 27.00 27.00 85.00 -13.00

1208.00 1236.00 -28.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

70-DAY BILL Matures 10/1 35.00 -35.00

70-DAY BILL Matures 10/8 30.00 -30.00

16-DAY BILL 10/8 10/13 10.00 10.00 0.00

Matures 10/29

70-DAY BILL Matures 10/15 35.00 -35.00

328-DAY BILL Matures 10/22 35.00 -35.00

70-DAY BILL Matures 10/22 35.00 -35.00

42-DAY BILL 10/21 10/29 15.00 15.00 0.00

Matures 12/10

70-DAY BILL Matures 10/29 30.00 -30.00

300-DAY BILL 10/28 10/30 25.00 25.00

Matures 8/26/10

20-DAY BILL 11/20 11/25 15.00 15.00 0.00

Matures 12/15

70-DAY BILL 12/8 12/10 15.00 15.00

Matures 2/18/10

CMB Funds: -160.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-year TIPS ® 10/1 10/5 10/15 7.00 1.00

3-year Note 10/1 10/6 10/15 39.00 1.00

10-year Note ® 10/1 10/7 10/15 20.00

30-year Bond ® 10/1 10/8 10/15 12.00 14.40 63.61

5-year TIPS ® 10/22 10/26 10/30 7.00 1.00

2-year Note 10/22 10/27 11/2 44.00 1.00

5-year Note 10/22 10/28 11/2 41.00 1.00

7-year Note 10/22 10/29 11/2 31.00 2.00 20.01 102.99

3-year Note 11/4 11/9 11/16 40.00 1.00

10-year Note 11/4 11/10 11/16 24.00 1.00

30-year Bond 11/4 11/12 11/16 16.00 1.00 37.47 42.53

2-year Note 11/19 11/23 11/30 45.00 1.00

5-year Note 11/19 11/24 11/30 42.00 1.00

7-year Note 11/19 11/25 11/30 32.00 1.00 20.00 99.00

3-year Note 12/3 12/8 12/15 40.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 12/3 12/9 12/15 21.00 1.00

30-year Note ® 12/3 12/10 12/15 13.00 1.00 14.60 59.40

2-year Note 12/17 12/21 12/31 45.00 0.00

5-year Note 12/17 12/22 12/31 42.00 0.00

7-year Note 12/17 12/23 12/31 32.00 0.00 22.00 97.00

593.00 128.48 464.53

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 276.53
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Joshua Gold Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Benjamin Ward, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 as of the date and for the periods  expressed in the Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Benjamin Ward       |
|-------------------------|
| Benjamin Ward           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
| July 22, 2011           |

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

{00204877. }                                                             

----
Exhibit
12.1 Consolidated
Edison, Inc.  Ratio
of Earnings to Fixed Charges  (Millions
of Dollars)  For
  the Three Months Ended
  
  For
  the Twelve Months Ended December 31,March
  31, 2003
  
  2002
  
  2001
  
  2000
  
  1999
  
  1998EarningsNet Income for Common Stock
  
  $
  154
  
  $
  646
  
  $
  682
  
  $
  583
  
  $
  701
  
  $
  713Preferred Stock Dividend
  
  3
  
  13
  
  14
  
  14
  
  13
  
  17Cumulative Effect of Changes in Accounting
  Principles
  
  
  
  22
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Income) or Loss from Equity Investees
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (1
  )
  1
  
  1Minority Interest Loss
  
  1
  
  2
  
  2
  
  1
  
  
  
  Income Tax
  
  98
  
  376
  
  442
  
  307
  
  373
  
  405Pre-Tax Income from Continuing Operations
  
  $
  256
  
  $
  1,059
  
  $
  1,140
  
  $
  904
  
  $
  1,088
  
  $
  1,136Add: Fixed Charges*
  
  119
  
  493
  
  480
  
  452
  
  378
  
  372Add: Distributed Income of Equity Investees
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  1
  
  1
  
  Subtract: Interest Capitalized
  
  4
  
  14
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Subtract: Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement
  
  4
  
  19
  
  22
  
  21
  
  21
  
  27Earnings
  
  $
  367
  
  $
  1,519
  
  $
  1,598
  
  $
  1,336
  
  $
  1,446
  
  $
  1,481*
  Fixed ChargesInterest on Long-term Debt
  
  $
  96
  
  $
  373
  
  $
  384
  
  $
  351
  
  $
  306
  
  $
  295Amortization of Debt Discount, Premium and Expense
  
  3
  
  12
  
  13
  
  12
  
  13
  
  14Interest Capitalized
  
  4
  
  14
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Other Interest
  
  8
  
  61
  
  42
  
  50
  
  20
  
  18Interest Component of Rentals
  
  4
  
  14
  
  19
  
  18
  
  18
  
  18Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement
  
  4
  
  19
  
  22
  
  21
  
  21
  
  27Fixed
  Charges
  
  $
  119
  
  $
  493
  
  $
  480
  
  $
  452
  
  $
  378
  
  $
  372Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  
  3.1
  
  3.1
  
  3.3
  
  3.0
  
  3.8
  
  4.0   
  Exhibit
12.1 Consolidated
Edison, Inc.  Ratio
of Earnings to Fixed Charges  (Millions
of Dollars)  Twelve Months Ended March
  2003EarningsNet Income for Common
  Stock
  
  $
  654Preferred Stock Dividend
  
  12Cumulative Effect of
  Changes in Accounting Principles
  
  2(Income) or Loss from
  Equity Investees
  
  1Minority Interest Loss
  
  2Income Tax
  
  378Pre-Tax Income from
  Continuing Operations
  
  $
  1,049Add: Fixed Charges*
  
  501Add: Distributed Income of
  Equity Investees
  
  Subtract: Interest
  Capitalized
  
  18Subtract: Preferred Stock
  Dividend Requirement
  
  18Earnings
  
  $
  1,514* Fixed
  ChargesInterest on Long-term Debt
  
  $
  378Amortization of Debt
  Discount, Premium and Expense
  
  12Interest Capitalized
  
  18Other Interest
  
  59Interest Component of
  Rentals
  
  16Preferred Stock Dividend
  Requirement
  
  18Fixed
  Charges
  
  $
  501Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
  Charges
  
  3.0
#### Cumsie GIBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE
13a-14(a) AND RULE 15d-14(a)

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18

OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Nevada Property 1 LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Unwin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 30, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/    John Unwin      
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63104-63107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30989]



[[Page 63104]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 98-16]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Assistance Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104-164 dated 21 July 
1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 98-16, with attached transmittal and 
policy justification pages.

    Dated: November 20, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 63105]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.020



[[Page 63106]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.021



[[Page 63107]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.022



[FR Doc. 97-30989 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
#### Orville M. MARTIN, Jr., Petitioner, v. CORAL SEA PHILLIPS 66, Great Central Insurance Company, and Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 40521.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 26, 1971.

Edward L. Walton, of Walton & Garrick, Miama, Fla., for petitioner.

John F. McMath, of Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

ADKINS, Justice.

We have for review by petition for writ of certiorari, an order of the Industrial Relations Commission, which reversed the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims.

Claimant, an automobile mechanic, was injured in 1965 when a car under which he was working fell off the jackstands and hit him across his shoulders and hips. The Judge of Industrial Claims entered an order on February 13, 1970, finding that claimant reached maximum medical improvement October 6, 1968, and sustained 25 per cent partial disability.

Upon review, the Industrial Relations Commission reversed the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims and remanded the cause for further hearings, finding that there was not competent substantial evidence to establish the exact date of maximum medical improvement, and that there was not sufficient findings of fact to support a 25 per cent permanent partial disability of the body as a whole based on a diminution of wage-earning capacity.

The termination of the date of maximum medical improvement is often a difficult question of fact to be resolved by the Judge of Industrial Claims. The evidence relied upon by the Judge of Industrial Claims supported his finding. Corral v. McCrory Corporation, 228 So.2d 900 (Fla.1969). The testimony in the instant case is as precise as to the maximum improvement date as that approved by this Court in Hermansen v. Webster Outdoor Advertising Co., 230 So.2d 145 (Fla.1970).

The Industrial Relations Commission erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the Judge of Industrial Claims.

Upon consideration of the record and briefs, it appears, that the findings of fact by the Judge of Industrial Claims are supported by competent substantial evidence, which accords with logic and reason, and the order is in accord with the essential requirements of the law.

The order of November 10, 1970, entered by the Industrial Relations Commission, is reversed, and the order of the Judge of In*466dustrial Claims, entered February 13, 1970, is reinstated.

The petition for attorneys’ fees filed by petitioner is granted in the amount of $500.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7805

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LORENZO EDWARD THOMPSON, a/k/a Bay,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan,

District Judge. (CR-92-302)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Edward Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Boros Major,

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his motion for return of seized property. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Thompson, No. CR-92-302 (S.D.W. Va. July

21, 1995; October 25, 1995). 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
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

----

 

**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

In connection with the amended AnnualReport of BlackStar Enterprise Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, John Noble Harris, ChiefExecutive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledgeand belief:

            (1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

            (2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April17, 2017

/s/ John NobleHarris

John Noble Harris, 

Chief Executive Officer & PrincipalExecutive Officer

This certification accompanies the Reportpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, exceptto the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed bythe Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.
EXHIBIT 35.1
 VW Credit, Inc. Servicer Compliance Statement Under Section 3.9 of the Sale and Servicing
Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB
 
   1.
    
    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 28, 2010
through December 31, 2010, and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement
was conducted under my supervision.2.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout
such period, except that, with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criterion in Paragraph
(d)(2)(i) of Item 1122, on April 8, 2010 a systems reporting deficiency caused a batch of
payments to be transferred to the collection account on the third business day rather than
the two business days as required under the transaction agreements; however, there was no
adverse impact to the Noteholders. The above mentioned deficiency was identified during
the Companys daily reconciliation process; however, process verification delayed the
transfer.
  /s/ Andrew StuartAndrew StuartExecutive Vice President & CFO
SERVED JANUARY 4, 2011 -p/.RTMENTOF 

VvSPORWION 

, 1 ("jpirpATinjMq 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' --""ui^o 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ;i r^. ,, ^ , r. 

WASHINGTON, DC ' '' " ^' ^^ 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BRAINERD HELICOPTER 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0017 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-1212 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009SW910268) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

lonnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law 
FAA Docket No. CP10SW0017 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

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* 

ONE COPY 

Donald Chance Mark, Jr., Respondent's Counsel 

Fafmski Mark & Johnson, P. A. 

Flagship Corporate Center 

775 Prairie Center Drive, Suite 400 

Eden Prairie, MN 55344 

TEL: 952-995-9500 

FAX: 952-995-9677 

Laura Ponto, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-9863 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

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

Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 15, 2012

Mr. D. Mitchell McFarland

Harrison Bettis Staff McFarland & Weems, LLP

Wedge International Tower

1415 Lousiana St., 37th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

Mr. Jacks C. Nickens

McGuireWoods LLP

600 Travis, Suite 7500

Houston, TX 77002

Ms. S. Shawn Stephens

Baker & Hostetler, LLP

1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000 

Houston, TX 77002-5018

RE:Case Number:  11-0059

Court of Appeals Number:  14-09-00118-CV

Trial Court Number:  2006-70615

Style:EL PASO MARKETING, L.P. AND ENTERPRISE TEXAS PIPELINE LLC

v.

WOLF HOLLOW I, L.P.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@txcourts.gov or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 11-0059Page 2**
1TGA Data from Lot 273** COMPANY SANITIZED **
#### HERMAN A. THOMAS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Marie W. SHARPE, a single woman, Appellee.

No. 73-1286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 9, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Barry S. JAMESON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Diana K. BUTLER, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 00-56443.

D.C. No. CV-97-00894-MJL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 4, 2002.

Decided July 24, 2002.

Before HALL, SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

California state inmate Barry Jameson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 habeas corpus petition as barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and review the district court’s dismissal of the habeas petition de novo. *Dictado v. Ducharme,*244 F.3d 724, 726 (9th Cir.2001). We disagree with the district court’s holding that the petition was time-barred but affirm on the alternative ground that Jameson cannot state a due process claim.

Because Jameson is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, the one-year limitations period applies to Jameson’s § 2241 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); *Owens v. Boyd,*235 F.3d 356, 360 (7th Cir.2000).

We agree with Jameson that his petition was not untimely. Because the disciplinary decision was final prior to AEDPA, the statute of limitations started to run on April 24, 1996. *Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999). On that date, Jameson’s state petition for writ of habeas corpus was pending. The limitations period was tolled while Jameson pursued his state petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The California Supreme Court denied the habeas petition on April 24, 1996 and that decision became final on May 25, 1996 pursuant to California Rule of Court 24. *Bunney v. Mitchell,*262 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir.2001). He had until May 25, 1997 to file his *105petition. Jameson filed the petition on May 7, 1997. Therefore, it was timely. We note that the district judge did not have the benefit of *Bunney*because it had not yet been decided.

Jameson argues that his due process rights were violated because a prison disciplinary violation contributed to the denial of his parole. However, a defective disciplinary violation that does not “inevitably affect the duration of his sentence” fails to state a cognizable due process claim. It is simply an ordinary incident of prison life. *Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 487, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). In any event, ten other serious violations supported the parole denial so that “some evidence” supports the parole denial. *Perveler v. Estelle,*974 F.2d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir.1992).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.