alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 16 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BILL ROBERT CATHEY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

GARY GIBSON and ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-7047

(D.C. No. CIV 98-CV-268-S)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner-Appellant Bill Robert Cathey (“Cathey”) is currently incarcerated

at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma pursuant to a state

conviction and sentence which became final prior to the effective date of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Accordingly,
- 2 -

he had until April 24, 1997, plus “any time during which a properly filed

application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the

pertinent judgment or claim is pending,” in order to file his federal petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Hoggro v. Boone, 150

F.3d 1223, 1226-27 (10th Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). 

Here, Cathey filed his federal habeas petition in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on June 8, 1998. The district court

determined that, at most, the time for Cathey to file his federal habeas petition

should have been tolled 122 days, which would have given him until the end of

August 1997 to meet AEDPA’s timing requirements. Because Cathey filed his

federal habeas petition on June 8, 1998, the district court dismissed the petition as

time barred. The district court also denied Cathey a certificate of appealability

(“COA”).

Before this court, in support of his application for a COA, Cathey argues

that, in violation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erroneously

concluded that his state postconviction application was untimely, which led the

federal district court to conclude erroneously that his federal habeas petition was

time barred. We find that Cathey’s argument is without merit. Because he has
- 3 -

failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny Cathey’s application for a COA.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(17)
              - science_faqs(14)
              - science_science(751)
              - products_data(356)
              - products_maps(78)
              - products_publications(4311)
              - products_software(12)
              - products_web_tools(51)
              - multimedia_audio(105)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(96)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(9)
              - multimedia_before_after(17)
              - multimedia_image(1659)
              - multimedia_image-141769(49)
              - multimedia_image-141770(14)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1466)
              - multimedia_image-141772(11)
              - multimedia_image-141774(8)
              - multimedia_image-141775(73)
              - multimedia_image-141776(27)
              - multimedia_image-204460(5)
              - multimedia_image-207195(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(20)
              - multimedia_video(419)
              - multimedia_video-149194(144)
              - multimedia_video-149195(141)
              - multimedia_video-149196(26)
              - multimedia_video-149197(35)
              - multimedia_video-149198(17)
              - multimedia_video-149225(7)
              - multimedia_webcam(22)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(16)
              - (-)multimedia_webcam-141786(4)
              - documents_file(41)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149208(6)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149212(1)
              - documents_file-149214(6)
              - (-)documents_file-149216(4)
              - documents_file-149217(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(10)
              - documents_file-149222(3)
              - news_news-149245(99)
              - news_news-149246(8)
              - news_news-149248(28)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(51)
              - news_newsletters(17)
              - news_other_news(101)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(104)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(55)

## By Location

              - california(3)

## By Year

Presentations (PowerPoint)        August 28, 2018        Flood Inundation Types Science Overview

Presentations (PowerPoint)        November 6, 2018        Post-Wildfire Playbook

webcam        September 23, 2021        San Lorenzo River at Big Trees State Park, CA

Presentations (PowerPoint)        August 28, 2018        FIM Program Overview Presentation

Presentations (PowerPoint)        August 28, 2018        Links between FIM and USGS Mission Areas

webcam        May 17, 2022        Truckee River at Boca Bridge near Truckee, CA

webcam        September 23, 2021        Merced River at Happy Isles Bridge, Yosemite, CA

webcam        September 23, 2021        Eel River at Fernbridge, CA
Ricky D. NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2503

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 30, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Nelson v. State*, 202 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (table decision); *Nelson v. State*, 189 So. 3d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (table decision); *Nelson v. State*, 156 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (table decision); *Nelson v. State*, 50 So. 3d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (table decision); *Nelson v. State*, 17 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table decision); *Harris v. State*, 777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
# C_2020279EN.01003701.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 June 2020 — VB v Glavna Direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zaschtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

(Case C-262/20)

(2020/C 279/49)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Lukovit

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VB

Defendant: Glavna Direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zaschtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purposes of effective protection under Article 12(a) of Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) should the normal duration of periods of night duty of police officers and firefighters be shorter than the normal duration of periods of day duty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of effective protection under Article 12(a) of Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) should the normal duration of periods of night duty of police officers and firefighters be shorter than the normal duration of periods of day duty?

| 2. | For the purposes of the principle of equality set out in Articles 20 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must the normal duration of periods of night work laid down in national law for workers in the private sector (7 hours) also apply to public-sector workers, including police officers and firefighters? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purposes of the principle of equality set out in Articles 20 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must the normal duration of periods of night work laid down in national law for workers in the private sector (7 hours) also apply to public-sector workers, including police officers and firefighters?

| 3. | Can the objective of limiting the duration of periods of night work mentioned in the eighth recital of Directive 2003/88/EC be effectively attained only if the normal duration of periods of night work, including for public-sector workers, is expressly laid down in national law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the objective of limiting the duration of periods of night work mentioned in the eighth recital of Directive 2003/88/EC be effectively attained only if the normal duration of periods of night work, including for public-sector workers, is expressly laid down in national law?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 05 Volume 007 P. 3).

---
Antonio Lebarron JONES v. STATE

CR-16-0590

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2020247EN.01000302.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/3

---

Appeal brought on 12 February 2020 by Refan Bulgaria OOD against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2019 in Case T-747/18, Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)

(Case C-72/20 P)

(2020/C 247/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Refan Bulgaria OOD (represented by: A. Ivanova, адвокат)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 4 June 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
Robert LASTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3288

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 25, 2019

Robert Laster, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - (-)multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - california(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(1)

## By Year

Policy and Directives        October 24, 2018        National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive Collection Policy

Interviews        June 1, 2022        Landers Rupture — Jonathan Fieldwork

Interviews        November 17, 2010        Completion of Continent - Wide Soil Survey

Interviews        July 5, 2011        Earth History of the National Capital Region – Volcanoes, Earthquakes & Dinosaurs... Oh My!

Interviews        September 15, 2010        Making Waves: Hypoxia in U.S. Coastal Waters

Interviews        August 30, 2009        The Water Beneath Our Feet: New Study on California's Central Valley Groundwater Level Decline

Interviews        July 6, 2010        Science for a Dangerous Planet

Interviews        November 30, 2009        Urban Hydrology: Restoration and Monitoring of Johnson Creek in Portland, Oregon

Interviews        April 18, 2011        USGS Hydrologic Investigation of West Africa's Congo River (part 3)

Interviews        September 6, 2011        Stranger than Fiction: The Secret Lives of Freshwater Mussels

Interviews        August 24, 2009        Pharmaceuticals in Urban Streams in Northwest Oregon
Freddie Roosevelt TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3034

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of GeoPetro Resources Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Stuart J. Doshi , Chief Executive Officer, and Paul D. Maniscalco, InterimChief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:

 
| (1)    |   | The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (2)    |   | The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 
| Dated:  August 16, 2010 | /s/  Stuart J. Doshi                |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                         | Stuart  J. Doshi                    |
|                         | President,  Chief Executive Officer |
|                         | and  Chairman of the Board          |
|                         |                                |
| Dated:  August 16, 2010 | /s/  Paul D. Maniscalco             |
|                         | Paul  D. Maniscalco                 |
|                         | Interim  Chief Financial Officer    |
|                         | and  Principal Accounting Officer   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to GeoPetro Resources Company and will be retained by GeoPetroResources Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----

*                                             Thiscertification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JUL-01-2000                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-2000                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           464                      1,500
<SECURITIES>                                       0                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0                          0
<INVENTORY>                                        0                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 464                      1,500
<PP&E>                                             0                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   804                      1,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            400                        400
<BONDS>                                            0                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0                          0
<PREFERRED>                                        0                          0
<COMMON>                                         500                        500
<OTHER-SE>                                       (96)                     1,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     804                      1,900
<SALES>                                            0                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0                          0
<CGS>                                              0                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 508                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (508)                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (508)                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0                          0
<CHANGES>                                          0                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (508)                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .00                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .00                        .00



</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.217  FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS,  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA  LICENSE  No. 99295 dated October 24, 2012  For Rendering  Communication Channel Provision Services  This license is granted to  Closed Joint Stock Company  CITY-TELECOM  Primary State Registration Number  of a Legal Entity (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)  1037739360735  Taxpayer Identification Number (INN)  7704152556


Location (place of residence):  11, Noviy Arbat Str., Moscow, 121852  The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.  This license is granted for a term:  until October 24, 2017  This license is granted by decision of the licensed body  Order dated May 24, 2012 No. 504  Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets  Deputy   Head
Signature O. A. IvanovStampL.S.  CN 034959


Appendix to the license No. 99295**  License Requirements  1. Closed Joint Stock Company CITY TELECOM (licensee) shall observe the term of this license.  Abbreviated name:  CITY-TELECOM CJSC  OGRN [PRIMARY STATE REGISTRATION NUMBER] 1037739360735  INN (TIN) 7704152556  Location:  11, Noviy Arbat Str., Moscow, 121852  2. The licensee shall commence provision of telecommunications services under this license on or before October 24, 2012.  3. The licensee shall render telecommunications services related to provision of communication channels located within the territory of the Russian Federation under this license only within the territory of Moscow.  4. Under this license the licensee shall provide a user with the possibility of transmission of telecommunication messages via communication channels generated by the licensees telecommunications network transmission lines*.  5. When providing telecommunications services under this license, the radio-frequency spectrum is not used.


6. The licensee shall fulfill the requirements to telecommunications networks and facilities for performance of investigative activities, as established by the federal executive authority responsible for telecommunications upon agreement with the authorized state bodies engaged in investigative activities, and take measures to prevent disclosure of organizational and tactical methods of performance of these activities.  7. The licensee shall provide information on the basis for accrual of the mandatory deductions (non-tax payments) to the universal service fund in the manner and in the form established by the federal executive authority responsible for telecommunications.  
 * In addition to the services provided for by this license, other services technologically closely related to telecommunications services associated with provision of communication channels and intended for increase in their customer value may be provided, unless a separate license is required for this purpose. ** This license has been granted within extension of the license No. 53295 dated October 24, 2007.  99295