alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 855

EX PA R TE Z O N ED W A R D TH O M A S , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 2 1 5 2 4 - A I N T HE 8 6 TH DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM KA UFM AN CO UNTY

P ercur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of posses s i o nof more than one gram of me thamphetamine and sente nced to eight year s’ i mprisonment. The Eig hth Court of Appeals aff

irmed his conviction. Thomas v . State , No. 08-05-247- CR (Tex. App. - El Paso, pet. dismissed). Applicant conte nds that his appellate counsel re ndere d ineff e c ti v ea s s is ta

n c eb e c a u s ecounsel failed to timely

file a pe tition for discretionar y revie w for A

pplicant. Ap p el l at e co unsel filed anTHOMAS - 2

aff idavit w ith the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court has enter ed finding s of fa ct and conclusions of lawthat appellate counsel filed a petition for discretionary revie w for Applicant, but it was dism i s sed bec ause the filing w as not timely . The trial c ourt rec ommends that relief be gra nte d. We f

ind , th e re fo re , th at App lic ant i s e nti tle d to the op po rtun ity to f ile an o ut- of

-t ime petition for di scre tionary revie w of the j udg ment of the Eig hthCourt of Appea ls in Cause No. 08-05- 247-CR that aff irmed his conviction in Case No. 21524 from the 86thJ udicial District Court of Kauf manCounty . Applicant shall file his p et i t i o nfor discr etionary revie w with the Eig hthCourt of Ap pe a ls w ith in 3 0 d ay s o f t he date on

wh ic h th is C ourt ’s mand ate iss ue s.

Deliver ed: Februar

y 27, 2008 Do no t pu bli sh
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16714]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2114-070]


Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington; Notice 
Establishing Comment Period for Complaint

June 18, 1998.
    On May 28, 1998, Crescent Bar, Inc., Crescent Bar Homeowners 
Association, Crescent Bar Resort condominium Association, and 
Commercial Leaseholders (complainants) filed a document entitled 
``Complaint of Crescent Bar Residents.'' The complainants request, 
pursuant to 18 CFR 385.206 of the Commission's regulations, that the 
Commission find the Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, 
Washington (District) to be in violation of the Federal Power Act and 
the Commission's regulations and policies because the District has 
retained excessive lands containing private homes and businesses within 
the project boundary. Complainants also request that the project 
boundary be changed to exclude privately developed areas on the island 
of Crescent Bar from the project boundary.
    Pursuant to Rule 213(d) of the Commission's regulations, answers to 
complaints are due within 30 days after filing or, if noticed, after 
publication of the notice in the Federal Register, unless otherwise 
ordered.\1\ In general, the Commission's policy is to publish notice in 
the Federal Register of complaints against hydroelectric licensees.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.213(d). See also 18 CFR 385.202.
    \2\ 18 CFR 2.1(a)(1)(iii)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person may file an answer, comments, protests, or a motion to 
intervene with respect to the complaint in accordance with the 
requirements of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 
385.211, 385.213, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to 
take with respect to the complaint, the Commission will consider all 
protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to 
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party 
to the proceeding. Any answers, comments, protests, or motions to 
intervene must be received no later than 30 days after publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16714 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-6435.

#### Mikal Mustafa Mix, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 988, 131 S. Ct. 431,

178 L. Ed. 2d 335,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8320.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 387 Fed. Appx. 406.
No. 10-6257.

#### Richard Christman, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 973, 131 S. Ct. 488,

178 L. Ed. 2d 308,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8074.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 607 F.3d 1110.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          85,653                  85,272
<SECURITIES>                                 2,276,983               2,122,716
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,619                 166,966
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (15,000)                (15,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,137,445                 986,189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                          40,004                  40,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (27,769)                (17,769)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,617,935               3,368,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,476                  44,679
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,511                  50,511
<COMMON>                                       128,307                 128,307
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,439,177               3,189,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,617,935               3,368,378
<SALES>                                        167,074                 197,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               167,074                 197,149
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  159,211                 172,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               341,809                 (58,911)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                  24,795
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                349,672                  58,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (70,435)                 (5,731)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            279,237                  64,656
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   279,237                  64,656
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19                     .02
        

</TABLE>
No. 09-11065.

#### Neng Por Yang, Petitioner v. City of Shakopee, Minnesota, et al.

562 U.S. 860, 131 S. Ct. 136,

178 L. Ed. 2d 82,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5859.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-599-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

June 16, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 8, 1998, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68103-0330, filed 
in Docket No. CP98-599-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205 and 157.216) for authorization to abandon five small volume 
measuring stations (farm taps) located in Nebraska, under Northern's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No CP82-401-000 pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Northern states that all five end-users have requested the removal 
of the measuring stations from their property. The Nebraska counties 
involved with the abandonment are Butler, Gage and Lancaster.
    Northern states that the proposed activity is not prohibited by its 
existing tariff and that it has sufficient capacity to accommodate the 
proposed changes without detriment or disadvantage to Northern's other 
customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16478 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

              SUBSIDIARIES OF METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
                             (DIRECT and INDIRECT)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       State or Other Jurisdiction of
Name of Entity                                         Incorporation or Organization
--------------                                         ------------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>
Metawave International Communications                 Delaware
 Corporation

Metawave Communications                               Cayman Islands
(Cayman Islands)

Metawave Communications                               Hong Kong
(Asia) Limited

Metawave Communications                               Taiwan
Taiwan Ltd.

Adaptive Telecom, Inc.                                California

Metawave do Brasil Ltda.                              State of Sao Paulo, Brazil

Metawave Services de Mexico, S. de R.L. de            Mexico
 C.V.
Metawave de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.                Mexico

Metawave Communications (Shanghai) Co.,Ltd.           Wai Gaoqiao Free Trade Zone, Shanghai,
                                                      People's Republic of China
</TABLE>
#### Lane Altschuler, Respondent, v Jobman 478/480, LLC, Appellant.

Submitted January 30, 2017;

decided March 30, 2017

Motion by Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affirmation is accepted as filed.
No. 10-6355.

#### Antonio Santos, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 974, 131 S. Ct. 492,

178 L. Ed. 2d 311,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7860.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

*312Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 794.
#### Com. v. Houseweart23

03/16/2016

785 MAL (2015)

23

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 77
No. 10-6520.

#### Ernest Brim, aka Bernard Horne, Petitioner v. Aristedes W. Zavares, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1015, 131 S. Ct. 533,

178 L. Ed. 2d 392,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8565,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 885.
#### In the Matter of Judith Weil, Petitioner, v W. Franc Perry et al., Respondents.

[61 NYS3d 492]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Justice W. Frank Perry has elected, pursuant to CPLR 7804 (i), not to appear in this proceeding.

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber and Oing, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricky Beck, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 604]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered October 15, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kerry R. Hicks, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K of Health
Grades, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this amendment
to the annual report.


Date: April 29, 2004

/s/Kerry R. Hicks
-----------------
President and CEO
# DLA leaders visit team members, warfighters in Jordan, Kuwait

/ Published July 14, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
The Defense Logistics Agency’s commander of regional combat support visited Army and Air Force leaders and DLA employees in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility during a tour of Jordan and Kuwait July 6-10.

During the trip, Navy Rear Adm. Doug Noble, who is also DLA’s director of logistics operations, toured operations at Joint Training Center-Jordan and Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, Jordan, and Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. As CENTCOM’s presence in the region evolves, Noble said it’s important to understand what support warfighters will require and where they will require it.

“Recent events in Europe have illustrated the criticality of DLA’s posture and presence in an AOR. We need to support the warfighter at the speed of relevance,” he said. “We have to ensure we’re postured to support the combatant commands’ operations and contingency plans.”

Noble was joined by Patrick Kelleher, DLA’s new executive director of operations; Army Col. Gerard Acosta, DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM commander; and Army Master Sgt. Felicia Hagler, DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM’s senior enlisted leader. 

As the services continue to exercise their presence in Jordan, DLA will work with them to ensure they have what they need to operate effectively, Acosta said. That could mean revised operational constructs for DLA Support Team-Middle East, the hub of DLA operations in the region, headquartered at Camp Arifjan, with one liaison officer in Jordan.

“Last month, the DST sent an expert to Jordan to augment our LNO and expedite repair parts to warfighters at the Joint Training Center,” he said. “The response from the warfighter was clear: Having the LNO along with a technical expert was invaluable.”

In addition to meeting with leaders from Operation Inherent Resolve, Military Assistance Program-Jordan, the 35th Infantry Division, Area Support Group-Jordan, the 1st Theater Sustainment Command, the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing, and the 135th Expeditionary Sustainment Command, the leaders made time to engage the DLA workforce in Kuwait. Noble recognized high-performing team members and shared his thoughts on DLA’s current operations and the way forward in the CENTCOM AOR.

“They’re doing great work over there,” he said. “The DST will continue to strategically align itself with CENTCOM’s warfighters to ensure there is no gap or degradation of support in theater. ‘Warfighter Always’ can’t just be words in our strategic plan; it has to be at the center of everything we do, and our team in the region truly embraces that.”
No. 09-11396.

#### David W. Wilson, Petitioner v. K. Wann, et al.

562 U.S. 878, 131 S. Ct. 191,

178 L. Ed. 2d 115,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6700.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 841.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antoine Lewis, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 865]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered February 17, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the challenged remarks generally constituted permissible rhetoric that fairly commented on the evidence and responded to defense arguments, that to the extent there were any improprieties they were not so egregious as to compel reversal, and that the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Messandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received *629effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Furthermore, we do not find that any lack of preservation may be excused on the ground of ineffective assistance.

Defendant’s pro se claim regarding a material witness proceeding, and his pro se Confrontation Clause claim are waived or unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
555 Airport Blvd., 5 th Fl. Burlingame, CA 94010 Direct Dial: (650) 762

- 7394 Direct Fax: (650) 648

- 0489 barbara.russell@virginamerica.com July 1 8 , 2013
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Esta Rosenberg Chief , U.S. Carrier Licensing Division U.S. De partment of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E

. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of Virgin America Inc. for Renewal of Exemption (Docket OST

201 1

- 0130 )

Dear Ms. Rosenberg , On July 12, 2013 , Virgin America Inc. filed an Application for Re newal of Exemption in the above

- referenced docket

. We have completed polling on this application and no carrier has objected to the grant of Virgin America’s Application

. We respectfully request that the Department proceed to renew Virgin America’s exem ption authorit y as soon as possible. Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Russell

Associate General Counsel Virgin America Inc. 555 Airport Blvd., Second Floor Burlin game, CA 94010 (650) 762

- 7394 (phone) (650) 762

- 7004 (fax) barbara.russell@virginamerica.com cc: service list
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60198 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CRAIG EDWARD TANNER, a/k/a Gerald Bongiorno, a/k/a Jerry Neil Tanner, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:94-CR-123

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Craig Edward Tanner appeals his sentence resulting from his guilty plea to an indictment for conspiracy to import marijuana. Tanner asserts that he was not factually connected to all of the marijuana shipments for which he was held accountable at sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the Government presentedNo. 96-60198 - 2 - the testimony of a special agent with the U.S. Customs Service who tied Tanner to the marijuana shipments in question using four separate criteria - the return address, the method of packaging, Tanner’s areas of operation, and Tanner’s previous arrest locations. The district court was not clearly erroneous in the amount of marijuana it considered relevant to the determination of Tanner’s offense conduct. United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 117 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.