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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7349

KENNETH TYRONE CHATMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director VDOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cv-00540-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Tyrone Chatman, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Tyrone Chatman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely filed and procedurally defaulted. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the 

district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that 

the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chatman has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### John RUSSELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 21, 1971.

Richard Essen, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

*404PER CURIAM.

The only question raised on this appeal, from appellant’s conviction of assault with intent to commit a felony to wit: robbery, is the sufficiency of the proof of his intent to commit robbery. The evidence is clearly sufficient under the rule stated in Simpson v. State, 81 Fla. 292, 87 So. 920, 921 (1921).

Affirmed.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00496

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1519910D

Before Birdwell, Bassel , and W omack , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack 

### Q UENTEZ 

### J AVONTA 

### B ROWN 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Quentez Javonta Brown appeals his convicti on and related ten

- year

sente nce for robbery , a charge Brown pleaded gu ilty to after the State h ad initially charged him with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (a firearm)

. See Tex . Penal
Code Ann. §§ 12.33 , 29.02

. W e will affirm.
B rown ’ s court

- appoi n ted appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of th at motion. Counsel ’ s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the

rec o rd demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738,
744 , 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State , counsel notified
Brown of his motion to withdraw, provided him a cop y of the brief, informed him of
his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his pro se right to seek
discretio nary review should this court hold th e appeal is frivolous, and took concrete
measures to facilitate Brown ’s review of the appellate reco rd. S ee 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). B rown had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the
An ders brief

, but he did not

. The State su bmitted a letter stating that it would not be filing a brief. As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. C rim. App. 1991); Mays v.
State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we3

grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully re viewed the record and c ounsel ’ s brief

. We agree with

coun s el that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit

— we find nothi ng in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw
and af f irm the trial court ’ s judgment.

/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack Justice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: A ugust 26, 2019
Oc t 14 201 1 2:5SP n H P LRSERJE T FR X P- 2

14O 0 Nofl h Hurstboum e Parkwa y: ^ - • \ • ; ^

7 Louijvlfle , K

Y 4022 3 502.329.300 0 Te l Octobe r 13.201 1 U.S . Departmfint

o f Transportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington . D C 2059 0 Subject : Docke t

No . FAA-201 1 -0915 ; Directorat e Identifie r 201 1 •NM-020-A D T o Who mIt

May Concern : Unite dParce l Servic e (UPS ) woul dlik e t o submi t th e followin g comment s i n respons e t o th e subjec t Notic e o f

Propose dRulemakin g (NPRM) , W e tak e exceptio n t o th e propose dA D baae do n alac k o f justification . Th e A D i s bein g propose di n respons e t o a , report o f afatigu e crac k

i n th e 17-4P H materia l lowe r carg o doo r

latc h pins . W e luiderston dtha t th e concern i s that

adjacen t latc hpin s ma y als o hav e fatigu e crackin g an dmay no t

b e abl e t o carry residua l Umi t load s i n cas e o f

th e failur e o f

on e latc hpin . Th e lowe r

forwejx i an daf t carg o doo r

latchin g structur e eac hinclude s 8 latc hpins . Thes e ar e part o f afai l saf e design , tha t

shoul dpreclud e critica l failur e withth e failur e o f on e element . UP S understand s tha t

this A D i s bein g propose ddu e t o on e reporte dbroke n latc hpi n o n on e aircraft , withth e adjacen t latc hpin s foun dundamaged , UP S note s tha t approximatel y 141 5 747 s (u p t o mode l varian t

747-8 ) hav e bee n produce db y Boein g wit hsixtee n o f thes e sam e latc hpin s installe dove r

th e las t 40 + years . Th e worl d74 7 fleet ha s accumulate dove r

10, 8 millio n flints . UP S als o note s tha t

th e 747-40 0 Maintenanc e Plannin g Documen t include s adetaile dinspectio n o f th e lowe r carg o doo r

latc hmechanisms , whic hinclude s th e latc hpins , a t 2 year o r 2,00 0 flight cycl e intervals , whicheve r occur s first . Th e propose dA D woul drequir e repetitiv e visua l inspection s a

t 1,600 flight

cycl e intervals , amodes t increas e i n frequency ove r th e existin g maintenanc e progra mwhic hha s alread y prove n successfL Q at detectin g damag e t o adjacen t latc h pins .Oc t 1 4 201 1 2:55P n H P LRSERJE T FH X p. 3

U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Octobe r B . 201 1 Pag e 2 o f 2 I n summary , base do n th e extensiv e fleet history o f

thes e lower

carg o doo r

latc hpins , withou t report s o f adjacen t pi n failures , an dwithth e existin g maintenanc e progra minspection s o f th e latc hpins , w e d o no t

believ e this propose drulemakin g i s justified , o r woul dprovid e a

n appreciabl e injcreas e i n safety . W e appreciat e you r consideratio n o f

our comments . Sincerely , UNITE D PARCE LSERVI E CO .

iielB . directo r Quality Assuranc e DH:SK;j k c : E dWalto n DanHaddi x Bruc e Nor d Stev e Kratt
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: September 4, 2008
    /s/ CHARLES A. RATNERName:
    Charles A. RatnerTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ ROBERT G. OBRIENName:
    Robert G. OBrienTitle:
    Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1








July 15, 2014Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Stephanie Higgins918-591-5026








ONEOK and ONEOK Partners Second-quarter


2014 Conference Call and Webcast Scheduled





TULSA, Okla. - July 15, 2014 - ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) and ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will release their second-quarter 2014 earnings after the market closes on Aug. 5, 2014.





ONEOK’s and ONEOK Partners’ executive management will participate in a joint conference call the following day on Aug. 6, 2014, at 11 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (10 a.m. Central Daylight Time).  The call also will be carried live on ONEOK’s and ONEOK Partners’ websites.





To participate in the telephone conference call, dial 800-967-7185, pass code 5696330, or log on to www.oneok.com or www.oneokpartners.com .





|      |                                                                 
|----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|What: | ONEOK and ONEOK Partners second-quarter 2014 earnings conference

call and webcast





|      |                              
|----- | -----------------------------
|When: | 11 a.m. Eastern, Aug. 6, 2014

10 a.m. Central





|       |                                                               
|------ | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Where: | 1) Phone conference call: dial 800-967-7185, pass code 5696330

2) Log on to the webcast at www.oneok.com


3) Log on to the webcast at www.oneokpartners.com








If you are unable to participate in the conference call or the webcast, the replay will be available on ONEOK’s website, www.oneok.com , and ONEOK Partners’ website, www.oneokpartners.com , for 30 days.  A recording will be available by phone for seven days.  The playback call may be accessed at 888-203-1112, pass code 5696330.








ONEOK, Inc. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKE) is the general partner and as of May 16, 2014, owns 38.8 percent of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS), one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships,which is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky


-more-


---



ONEOK and ONEOK Partners Second-quarter 2014


Conference Call and Webcast Scheduled





Page 2





Mountain regions with key market centers.  ONEOK is a FORTUNE 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Stock Index.





For more information, visit the websites at www.oneok.com or www.oneokpartners.com .





For the latest news about ONEOK and ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKNews and @ONEOKPartners .





###
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Amerifa Construction Company ) ) Under ContractNo. W917PM-06-C-0026 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61167
Stephen M. Seeger, Esq. Michael C. Zisa, Esq.

Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Washington, DC
. Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney James D. Stephens, Esq. Aimee L. Rider, Esq.

EngineerTrial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East Winchester, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: June 11, 2019

dministrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services BoardofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61167, Appeal ofAmerifa Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
#### The OHIO CASUALTY GROUP, Petitioner, v. James C. PARRISH, Jr., a minor, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 42409.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 22, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 260 So.2d 550.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
Exhibit A
Advisory Board Biographies


Admiral Bobby R. Inman U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Chairman, Executive Committee of Science Applications International Corporation;
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Westmark Systems, Inc.; former
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Microelectronics & Computer
Technology Corporation; Director, Fluor Corporation, Science Applications
International Corporation, Southwestern Bell Corporation, Temple-Inland and
Xerox Corporation.

Alfred J. Coyle
Advisory Director, PaineWebber Incorporated; former Director, American DualVest
Fund, Cubic Corp., Leaseway Transportation Corp., Oilfield Services Corp. of
America and Radiation Dynamics.

Richard Hodgson
Co-founder and Director, Intel Corporation; Director, I-Stat Corp., Ibis
Technology Inc., McCowan Associates and several private technology companies.

Eugene Kleiner
Founding partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers; Co-founder, Fairchild
Semiconductor Corporation; Director, Andros Corporation, Resound, Inc. and
several private technology companies; Trustee, Polytechnic University in New
York.

Antonie T. Knoppers, M.D.
Former President, Chief Operating Officer and Vice Chairman, Merck & Co.;
Director, Centocor, Inc; former Chairman, U.S. Council of the International
Chamber of Commerce.

Dr. George Kozmetsky, D.C.S.
Executive Associate for Economic Affairs, The University of Texas System; IC
Senior Research Fellow; Chairman, IC Advisory Board.

Joshua Lederberg, Ph.D.
Nobel Laureate; university professor and former President, Rockefeller
University; Director, Chemical Industry Institute for Toxicology, Dreyfus
Foundation and Council for Foreign Relations.
#### Neil M. CROCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-528.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 28, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Vaughn J. Rudnick, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffrey R. Mason, Chief Financial Officer of Great Basin
Gold Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the Annual Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                 

| | By:    | */s/
      Jeffrey R. Mason*
| | ------ | ----------------------------
| | Name:  | Jeffrey R. Mason            
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer     
| |        |                             
| |        |                             
| | Date:  | March 21, 2006              

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
40-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---




---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 19, 2018

No. 04-17-00811-CV

Richard O. WEED, Timothy A. Weed, and Rees R. Oliver, III,

Appellants

v.

FROST BANK, Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Rees R. Oliver, Jr. 

Deceased,

Appellees

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PC-2024A

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ unopposed second motion for extension of time to file the appellants’ brief is 

granted. We order appellants to file the appellants’ brief by April 18, 2018. Counsel is advised 

that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that (1) demonstrates 

extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel 

has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief 

will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally 

consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of March, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Federal Participants

Federal Trade Commission

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York

Consumer Protection Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice

State Attorneys General

Alabama

Alaska 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware

Florida 

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana

Nebraska 

Nevada

New Hampshire 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Vermont 

Virginia

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin

District of Columbia

State Regulatory Agencies

Arizona Department of Financial Institutions

Colorado Department of Law, Consumer Credit Unit 

Connecticut Department of Banking

Florida Office of Financial Regulation

Idaho Department of Finance

Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection

Maryland Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation 

Massachusetts Division of Banks

Minnesota Department of Commerce

Nevada Financial Institutions Division

New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department, Financial Institutions Division

New York State Department of Financial Services

North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions

Rhode Island Division of Banking

South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs

Washington State Department of Licensing

Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions

Other Participants

California State Bar, Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs, New York City 

Department of Consumer Affairs, Service Alberta (Canada)
1

Terry Gray 

TAG Resources 

Call with Industrial Economics 

August 10, 2009 

• Terry has been working on TDF issues since the 1970s and has consulted for the U.S. 

federal government and state, provincial, and foreign governments. 

• The market for whole tires is dependent on the market for TDF in that cement kilns 

take tires for which there is no demand as TDF. That is, with a few exceptions, 

whole tires are sent to cement kilns only if they can’t be sold as shredded TDF to 

other facilities. 

• Cement kilns often will not accept contaminated tires that contain a lot of mud. 

• There are a limited number of cement kilns that cannot use tires, but Terry does not 

have data on them. 

• The market for civil engineering applications for scrap tires has diminished recently. 

It’s possible that it could recover if scrap tires are considered a solid waste, but it’s 

not clear that it would necessarily recover. 

• He is open to working with IEc as a consultant on the project.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

emam c. Ia”” 

li-uIIuu 

:-*““w,c.IIoy ,..,...*^., _ -_,._- .- -- 
e#iAw~ theroof, ahoYlag the a 

T gpto dMIIa Peoeiptr frea the salo of say 0 ths above- .,a&mod itom for the quortor nut pwcodlag; 

and uhrll l t t&o oaae tlmo pay to the 0 

troller a luxury UOioo tax sqwsl to two ““p a) 

pardcauat& o&d ploor reoeipto u ohown by 

. 

l +e* 

Tto tung h wo la o h a ll h o o a uwwd 00 u 

to roq ulP0 p q lo Ent o f th o ta x d) g r eoo P o o elp to 

h0wl.n l*oiod mro thm QIQO a the promedo 

of ths uls of tho au4 utiolo ef lwwohRblldl8e. 

Arot.allulouwedhereia,maMaMleto 

l a no x r y b uyo fez we 01 o o nwa p tlo n, and no t for 

c b eso mooipto o f a o a lo M a lls the 

l a na M .& h the g +ur c h a ap or a ya , 01 r ip -p eeto sp a y 

feP@af srtiole o?? MawualtiJ bougtlt rt wail 

” 

While it mar bo w&id that geaeml4 ths VoFd “olnn” 

lo wed to donote money, owh lo aot ~oasouUy lto mmaUa& 

The oeocQd-hmd utlolo t&m in OI a papt of tb plrrpohrs* 

prioe 10 xm l otlcmbl~ 8 pl;ct ef tha ~‘ipto$o$ pa- 

&o. It r 0 noted that in the tlzot o*r 

ltbetuiofix8dat~amunteqmlto r of ths ~gooso 

reoeipts” for ths sale of ths aw rrdto; It 0eeU aSthe* 

olou to us that to 

fi 

00 ths vord “ova 8ousedlnthelut 

oe&ones of seotion the a ‘vdus~ vould oom namer 

oauporting to the int&it1a¶ of the Logiorrtrzre than to limit 

t&o mom&q of the roti to aey and allow the o&lo to go 

tu mo ln8otu u the pmhMe pldoe lo rspre0eat.d by 

gooda Instead of mtmoy. In OaQO 

7 

a !bmsfe~ Tu k 

for l ta x ‘at the r a te o ? a & 6ny eliunolt ia u5,ooo.oo up to tho mm of 50,000.00,” a Su=Qme'o 

gt;i”d,tho oaoe of In ro Xlletea 8 Patrte, 1% S. I. 8. t 

# 

“gko wo of the ro-tdo ‘aaeuat’ and ‘mm 

in the otatuto 10 uofortumte, a0 the00 wwdo 

US populbrlg wed to donot. wmey, but, U 
. 

suoh ?eoelpto, 

UUP a a o wP to o w Qwotim is th8t th s awlott up aa Yhlohtho wvll1bo Jotllw*dQl the omof)1oo.06in t&e 

fact l 1 tua t1ou?aaltted o n b y y o u. 

YOU V-Y M Y
#### James Otis YOUNGBLOOD, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-484.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 11, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.