ProSportsDaily.com > Basketball > NBA > How long before guys are averaging .500 from the arc?
View Full Version : How long before guys are averaging .500 from the arc?
On 8 occasions players have averaged over .500 from the arc. Four of these instances came when the league moved the 3pt line in so that the Bulls would have a chance against the Rockets when Jordan returned (jk).
These guys were not primary scorers. They are generally the types of guys who pick up open shots when the defences break down, hence their higher percentages.
However, we've seen primary shooter with significant defense hounding them shoot over .450 (Curry did it taking over 11 shots a game) and even more shooting over .400 (Klay shoots over .400 taking over 8 shots a game).
So the questions are as follows. First: WTF is Jon Sundvold, how did he not get more shots, and why do I not know who he is? (jk) And second (the real question), how long before we start seeing primary options drop three's at .500? Or will we ever? Are Curry and Klay anomalies? Or the new standard?
#2 and #4 are symptomatic of what came up in another thread: In the 80's and 90's the 3pt line was considered a gimmick by coaches because it was imported from the ABA. Very few coaches at the time recognized the advantage they were willingly giving up.
To answer one of the questions, Sundvold seems to be a career backup PG who couldn't do anything besides shoot 3s.
If they make the 3pt line shorter again like they did in the 90s there will be 50 guys shooting .500 next year.
Since it's happened before I'm sure it will happen in the future, but it's probably going to be a catch and shoot player doing it.
Mah boy gonna do it this yr!
I've called it into existence!
Props to Rihanna for that quote...that she actually knew what she was talking about.
I don't think it will ever be the norm. You will continue to get a sniper who doesn't take anything but open looks to bump over it now and then, but nobody of usage will shoot over it.
There's a law of diminishing returns on shooting. >50% from 3 will never happen as a norm barring rule changes that essentially negate perimeter defense or another re-shortening of the line.
Well... FT is a little different, but there are a host of guys who shoot over 80% every season. Lots of guys who shoot over 85% even.
I'm not saying it is going to happen, but in the 80's and 90's, if a guy who 33% he was decent. Guys who shot in the high 30's were amazing. Now those guys are average and 40% is the gold standard.
I feel like with this being the direction the league is going in, more and more kids/coaches/young players are going to be looking at this aspect of the game, just like when Jordan popularize that slash/dunk/mid-range game.
If we have a generation of kids trying to shoot 3's like Curry and Klay, we'll end up with some great 3-pt shooters.
I don't know where it's going to cap off, but I feel like having some guys in the next ten years who are running at .500 with a high volume of shots isn't unreasonable.
You'll see some players do it here and there. Just like you'll see very high free throw guys. But it'll never be the league average without it changing distance.
If somebody had said to you ten years ago: we're going to see teams first options putting up 10 or more 3's a game and averaging .450 while doing it, would you have believed that? Knowing that the only guys to post that kind of efficiency were spot-up shooters taking open shots when franchise players were being double teamed?
Jeffy25 You'll see some players do it here and there. Just like you'll see very high free throw guys. But it'll never be the league average without it changing distance.
I'm not suggesting that this will ever be the league average. But the league average has gone up dramatically. That means that top tier talent has gone up, so the questions is: are we going to have guys (as in a half dozen or so in the league) who post a percentage around .500?
That's different than "Is the league average going to be .500.
Curry's best window of shooting over .500 from 3 is 14 games ... so over 14 games, with his crazy number of 3 attempts he averaged making over half. 14 games to 82 is a long trip at that extreme rate. That said, I could see more players doing it when they are not the primary ball handler and doing it off the dribble but off catch and shoots, even with 3+ attempts a game.
Yeah, it'll happen more often than it has in the past.
I'd say it's not impossible. I mean if the game keeps evolving the way it is, and new look offenses led by stronger and taller players with lethal 3-point accuracy start to emerge (Lebron for instance showed flashes in the Finals this year) then teams may be able to take fuller advantage of the greater floor space opened up by advanced play beyond the arc.
Player accuracy on unguarded or wide open jump shots would be the ceiling I think. So say if Klay Thompson for instance took 1,000 wide open unguarded jumpers from 3 in practice, that FG% would probably be what the ceiling is.
Because let's say if players start to shoot more and more effectively from deep and teams continue to get more efficient at playing the game out to to 40 feet. The offenses would seem to have an inherent advantage because the defenders have to chase the players around, some of whom might be much taller or faster, AND really effective passing could have an even more pronounced advantage the farther the spacing is.
Actually right now this imaginary 3-point line works against the offense in a way, because the defenders are guarding players relative to that line. Think about for instance how defenses will "trap" a guard with the ball against the halfcourt line. The 3-point line (measured outward) essentially stops the shooter right in front of the defender and once the shooter gets ready to shoot it is a straight line defensive attack. But once accuracy and efficiency effectively move say 8-10 feet back from the 3-point line, it's more difficult. Like think about the way that good players can get off 10-12 footers with a variety of moves. And screens. Pick and roll plays executed above the 3-point line. Or lightning fast 4-corners tactics that end with a wide open 3 from 30 or a wide open dunk down low.
Won't happen. If it didn't happen in the strongest era in the 90's it won't happen ever.
I mean back then announcers were probably proclaiming that no one would ever hit 300 3's.
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if a player or multiple players hit 800+ 3 pointers in a season within the next 5-10 years.
Of course there could be some new defensive innovation. But really it's like missile or artillery technology throughout history probably. For instance as artillery or missiles or sniper rifles improved, then attackers just moved farther and farther away from their targets and continued to hit them with greater and greater accuracy.
The increased distance from the target has significant advantages because it makes it harder to defend. So as accuracy increases from range, the advantage will just exponentially increase.
800+ 3s in a season. IF you did that and managed to shoot an incredible 45% that's 22 3pt attempts a game ... that is essentially Westbrook level of usage with none of the shots being 2s.
I shy away from absolutes ... but I can't see 800+ 3s made in a season ever.


Rumours have been circulating since July, and it is now official; Christophe NAMBOTIN (F) has re-signed for KTM with a one-year contract.
But the Austrian brand and Fabio FARIOLI were quick to offer a new one-year contract to the Frenchman, which he signed just days before the AMV Grand Prix of France.
The brand should have a strong line-up once again with young star Nathan WATSON (UK) and perhaps Taylor ROBERT (USA), should he decide to stay.


text:
\section{Supplemental material: cancellation of ambiguities}

As stated in the section \emph{Resurgence} of the Letter, the key observation
is that the ambiguity at the leading order of the
transseries is
proportional to $\Omega$, so it can only be canceled by terms of order
$m=1$ or higher. The contributions to the transseries at orders $0-2$ can be
parameterized as
\begin{eqnarray}
f_R^{(0)} &=& \f{2}{3} +  \Omega b^{(0)}_1  + \Omega^2 b^{(0)}_2  + \dots,\nonumber\\
f_R^{(1)} &=& c\, \Omega\left(1 + \Omega b^{(1)}_1  + \dots\right), \nonumber\\
f_R^{(2)} &=& c^2 \Omega^2 \left(a_{2,0} + \dots \right),
\eea
where $b^{(m)}_n$ are constants, $a_{2,0} = -\frac{3}{2}+\frac{3
  C_{\lambda_{1}}}{2 C_{\eta}}$, and all the terms polynomial in $w$ have been
dropped. The constants $b^{(m)}_n$ capture the leading contributions of the
ambiguous terms. Their values can be obtained as described in the
section  \emph{Hydrodynamic Gradient Expansion at High Orders} in the
Letter. The result is
\beal{eq.b}
b^{(0)}_1 &=& e^{i \pi \gamma p} \Gamma(\gamma+1)
h^{(0)}_1(\xi_{0}),\nonumber\\
b^{(0)}_2 &=& e^{2 i \pi \gamma p} \Gamma(2 \gamma+1)
h^{(0)}_2(2 \xi_{0}),\nonumber\\
b^{(1)}_1 &=& e^{i \pi \gamma p} \Gamma(\gamma+1)
h^{(1)}_1(\xi_{0}).
\eea
The odd integer $p$ appearing in the phase factor could a priori be different in
each function, but for a cancellation of the ambiguity to be possible they
need to be equal as written above. Note also that the superscript indicates
the order in the transseries, so for example $h^{(0)}_k$ is what in the
section  \emph{Hydrodynamic Gradient Expansion at High Orders} section was denoted by $h_k$.
As stated in the Letter, the cancellation fixes the constant~$c$ up to a real
number shift. Alternatively, one may say that the cancellation of ambiguities
determines the imaginary part of~$c$.

Once the imaginary part of $c$ is determined, conditions at higher orders in
$\Omega$ should be satisfied automatically. At second order one finds
\beal{consicon}
2 \,a_{2,0} \,h^{(0)}_1(\xi_{0})- h^{(1)}_1(\xi_{0}) = 0,\nonumber\\
\Gamma(2\gamma+1) h^{(0)}_2(2 \xi_{0}) - a_{2,0} \Gamma(\gamma+1)^2
h^{(0)}_1(\xi_{0})^2 = 0.
\eea
Checking this explicitly is not easy, as it requires a very accurate numerical
calculation of
the numbers $h^{(0)}_1(\xi_{0}), h^{(1)}_1(\xi_{0})$ and
$h^{(0)}_2(2\xi_{0})$. We found\footnote{For technical reasons, we set
  $C_{\lambda_{1}} = 0$ while performing the check.} that the first of the
consistency conditions Eq.~\rf{consicon} is
satisfied at the
level of $5\%$. The second condition in Eq.~\rf{consicon} is much harder to
check given the level of accuracy attainable using Pad\'e
approximants in the vicinity of branch cut singularities.

Note finally that the term
involving $h^{(0)}_2$ would be absent if
we did not include the singularity at $\xi=2\xi_0$ in Eq.~(19) in the Letter, but its
presence is necessary for the cancellation mechanism outlined here. We expect
a similar mechanism to operate at higher orders. These expectations are also
supported by the success of the resummation described in section \emph{Resummation} in the Letter. It is
also reassuring that the value of $c$ determined there matches the value given in Eq.~(23) in the Letter.

\end{appendix}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Review-Land
The Best Children's Picture Books
Outside Over There, by Maurice Sendak
It had been nearly 20 years since "Where the Wild Things Are," but at the age of 53 Maurice Sendak completed the third book in the trilogy. I didn't read this book for years, because it looked disturbing – and it is. On the title page, there's a little girl teaching her baby sister to walk, and they pass a white picket fence, and an enormous bush of daisies. But sitting at the end of the fence is a hooded mystical figure. It could be the grandson of Death, and Sendak's answer isn't much more comforting. They're goblins – and they've come to kidnap the little girl's baby sister. There's even a second title page – spanning two pages – in which three more of the hooded goblins arrive.
Sendak has come up with another grand and mysterious fairy tale. "When Papa was away at sea," he begins, in a fancy font on a grand two-page spread. Sendak draws a yellow sky over a ship in the harbor, with a mountain on one side and on the other a beautifully-detailed drawing of a tree. The little girl, named Ida, stands in the middle, holding her baby sister next to her mother on the rocks – and two more of the hooded goblins on the left. " On the next page, there's a different view showing a whole forest of his detailed trees, plus a gorgeous leaf-colored trellis, a husky dog – and two hooded goblins, now carrying a ladder.
They'll use the ladder to kidnap Ida's baby sister when she isn't looking.
Sendak hides surprises in every picture. While Ida plays her horn, the leaves of a daisy vine poke into her room through another window. But in the next illustration, they're already starting to bloom, and soon there's enormous daisies intruding into her bedroom. Meanwhile the other window, where the goblins escape, inexplicably becomes a view to a ship on the ocean. And in the next illustration, it's a stormy sea where lightning strikes over the sinking ship.
Sendak's story uses enigmatic sentence fragments, while the illustrations seem to run away with the story. In response to the baby-napping, Ida puts on a yellow rain coat, takes her horn, "and made a serious mistake." It's not explained, but the next illustration shows her floating backwards over the daisies and the green-leafed trellis – while the background shows three goblins carrying her baby sister over a bridge. Sendak writes simply that: "She climbed backwards out her window into outside over there."
And the story gets more and more magical. Ida floats on her yellow rain coats, "whirling by the robber caves," and it's one of the most beautiful drawings in the book. There's a white moon turning the clouds silver, that frame the girl's yellow raincoat – just her face peeking out of the center. Below her is a horizon filled with detailed trees – and presumably under the ground, a cave with stalactites and a burning flame where two goblins wait by a moonlit ocean. Eventually Ida confronts the goblins, who'd hoped to turn her sister into a goblin bride.
Just like "Where the Wild Things Are," Ida triumphs in a magical world – and then returns home to her loving family.
This entry was posted on March 31, 2013, in Maurice Sendak. Bookmark the permalink.	Leave a comment
"Willie and the All-Stars" by Floyd Cooper →
River, by Judith Heide Gilliland and Joyce Powzyk
Michael Rosen's Sad Book
Cowboy Bunnies by Christine Loomis
Cecil's Story by George Ella Lyon
Good Morning, River! by Lisa Westberg Peters
anaihqdddL.8EHB on The Gift of the Tree by Alvin R. Tresselt
Rebekah Blocker on A sequel to Calvin and Hobbes?
Julie on The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs by Jon Scieszka
Pearl Jackson on About This Site
Neil Osborne on Ava's Adventure by Laura Pedersen
Fairy Tale Parodies

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


All ships which are required to carry radio installations to carry International Code of Signals.
All ships (see Guidance note 2) to carry Volume III of the IAMSAR Manual.
1. All ships which, in accordance with the present Convention, are required to carry a radio installation shall carry the International Code of Signals as may be amended by the Organization. The Code shall also be carried by any other ship which, in the opinion of the Administration, has a need to use it.
2. All ships shall carry an up-to-date copy of Volume III of the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) Manual.
1. INTERNATIONAL CODE OF SIGNALS - All passenger ships, and all cargo ships of 300 GT and over, when engaged on international voyages, are required to carry the International Code of Signals.
The IAMSAR manual must be kept up to date when amendments are issued by the IMO.


Physicians are now seeing patients at both buildings: 18 Centre Street and 24 Centre Street.
All appointments after 5pm and during weekend urgent clinics are at 18 Centre Street.
Click here to view your physician's profile and to check their availability.
Please book an appointment with the nurse. A nurse is available for injections, other medical needs and advice Monday through Friday. Due to volume, walk-ins will be asked to return with an appointment. We apologize for any inconvenience.
There is always a nurse on-call after office hours for our patients' urgent problems. A doctor is available to assist when the need arises. When you phone our office after hours you will hear a message directing you to call the Telephone Health Advisory Service Nurse at 1-866-553-7205. The nurse will assess your problem over the phone and advise you. This may involve a call back from the doctor on-call if the severity of your medical problem requires it.
If you have a life threatening emergency, please go directly to your nearest Emergency Department, or dial 911 for an ambulance.
When booking your appointment for Saturday morning, be sure to clarify the location of your appointment.
If you have a non life-threatening illness or injury, the Urgent Care Clinic in Vaughan is staffed by emergency physicians, and nurses. Lab services are available on-site.
Near Canada's Wonderland and the Vaughan Mills Shopping Centre.


text:
Honours and Memberships
DrMasahiroOno
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Life Sciences
m.ono
605Sir Alexander Fleming BuildingSouth Kensington Campus
The lab website
Dr Masahiro Ono was originally trained as a dermatologist, and later specialised in immunology. He obtained his PhD in 2006 by a study on regulatory T cells (Treg), and later identified the interaction of the Treg-specific transcription factor Foxp3 and the transcription factor Runx1. In 2009, he obtained a HFSP Fellowship, and joined University College London (UCL), when he established a new genomic analysis tool using a multidimensional method, Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA). In 2012, he was awarded a BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship, and established his lab in UCL. In 2015, he moved in the Department of Life Sciences, Imperial, and was appointed as Senior Lecturer in 2018.
Recently, the Ono group has established a novel tool for analysing temporal dynamics of cellular differentiation and activation in vivo, Timer-of-Cell-Kinetics-and-Activity (Tocky とき), and his group is using this tool to investigate mechanisms underlying T cell differentiation and T cell-mediated immune response.
Integrative systems biology
Wound Healing and Regeneration Network
Search College Directory


text:
Q: Git line endings after normalization This line endings problem is driving me nuts...
Background: Historically, I was using the core.autocrlf setting but I found I had problems with different repos behaving badly (I work on Windows and I have some repos that require LF endings and some that require CRLF endings). So I am trying to move away from that and use a .gitattributes in each repository (I want Git to just shut up and let me manage line endings!). So I now have core.autocrlf=false and a .gitattributes that looks like this for a Visual Studio project I am working on:
# Don't do any end of line normalization.
* -text

# Always treat these files as binary. Not strictly necessary, but can't hurt.
*.png binary
*.gif binary
*.jpg binary
*.jpeg binary
*.dll binary
*.doc binary
*.docx binary
*.xls binary
*.xlsx binary
*.pdf binary

I have forced all the files in the repo to CRLF endings with unix2dos and confirmed that they have the right line endings in the working directory, and checked them all in. And yes I followed the advice here Trying to fix line-endings with git filter-branch, but having no luck
This is almost perfect.
THE PROBLEM is that whenever I change a file git reports that it has line ending differences on the changed lines, for example, if the original line is
string s;

and the changed line is
string sucks;

git diff shows the change as
string sucks;^M

It looks like Git thinks that the files in the repo still have LF endings (because they were normalized in the past?). The ^M cause a large amount of visual noise and I am not sure whether this is a symptom of anything else. I don't understand why Git is reporting a difference because I have checked in all the files with CRLF endings in a previous commit, in fact the commit just before this one.
So why am I getting these "fake" differences and how can I get rid of them?

A: Woohoo! I think I found an answer. This website http://lostechies.com/keithdahlby/2011/04/06/windows-git-tip-hide-carriage-return-in-diff/ recommends doing
git config [--global] core.whitespace cr-at-eol

and this does indeed shut "git diff" up. Of course, the best solution is to do the equivalent in the .gitattributes file so that it sticks with the repo and is not dependent upon the user's settings.
Definitive settings for .gitattributes
Having spent some time experimenting with repos on Linux and Windows and with files having Unix and Windows line endings, I believe that the whole end-of-line issue can be made to go away if you just give your git repo a .gitattributes file with two lines:
* -text
* whitespace=cr-at-eol

The first line stops git from doing any line ending normalization and the second line stops git-diff highlighting CR characters at the end of lines. The only downside I could find is a slight oddity if you convert a file from DOS to Unix or vice-versa: git-diff will show the file as changed, but it doesn't highlight the reason why, instead it just shows every line as deleted then added. I can live with this, since it is such a rare operation (or should be).
The above places the burden of line-ending management on the committers. This is at it should be, I don't believe my VCS tool should be trying to do magic, the thousands of webpages and questions about git's handling of line endings is proof that they made a wrong decision here.
Variations
If you replace the first line with
* eol=lf

then files will always have LF endings in the working directory. This can be handy for repositories which must work across Unix and Windows, such as ".dotfiles". Likewise eol=crlf will force Windows style line endings. Warning This will also convert CRLFs in binary files! See  my comment at how to config git repo so that all files are stored with line-ending LF ( not CFLF ) ? so you will also need to use file paths or tell git which files are binary. https://help.github.com/articles/dealing-with-line-endings/
Handy Aliases
The following two git aliases provide a quick way of converting all text files in a repo from DOS to Unix or vice-versa. They specifically exclude any processing of the .git folder. I could not find a way of defining them from the command line, so edit your .gitconfig and add the following two lines in the [alias] section:
godos = !find . -path ./.git -prune -o -type f -exec unix2dos {} "\\;"
gounix = !find . -path ./.git -prune -o -type f -exec dos2unix {} "\\;"

You can then do git godos or git gounix in the root of the repo to set all text file endings to one or the other. n.b. The above only works on files in the current branch. I haven't found a way of converting every file in every branch yet.
References
gitattributes man page: https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/gitattributes.html
gitconfig man page (discussion of cr-at-eol): https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-config.html
Git aliases for find: `find -exec` in git alias

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Hardly At Work
by Andrew Tirado | Apr 29, 2017 | Uncategorized | 0 comments
The following post was written in 2014, but could've been written today.
I was just thinking back to the last time I was making a bunch of working drawings for a museum show, way back, and how that, too, was all about process.
It was 1990, and I was 20, living in Manhattan and working as an assistant for the artist Chuck Close.
At that time, Chuck was asked to curate the second in a series of "Artist's Choice" shows from the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection, Ellsworth Kelly having curated the first. Chuck and I spent nearly a month in MoMA's various departments, pouring over ring binders with laminated images of the museum's collection.
The show's theme was settled early on: portraiture. (I believe it was during the period of time I was working for Chuck that he softened his conceptual stance regarding his own work, which is nearly always an image of a specific person's face, usually a friend or family member, allowing it to be called portraiture. Prior to that, coming out of the late '60's – early '70's era when process art and minimalism was peaking, he called the subject of his work "heads", and would have said he wasn't interested in the concerns of a traditional portrait artist – including having no interest in ever doing a commission for anyone who'd want to see their image on a 9′ x 7′ canvas.)
Once Chuck had selected a few pieces for possible inclusion in the show, be they prints, photos, paintings, drawings, or sculptures, he'd ask for some of them to be brought out of storage for viewing. (I clearly recall there were a few pieces, however, that were selected and propped against the wall for our up close and personal viewing not because they were going to be in the show, but because when you get some opportunities, you take them.) Eventually Chuck compiled around 150 works to pack into a relatively small room for the show.
The next thing to figure out was how the selected pieces would go on the wall. For that, when we were back in Chuck's studio, I was asked to take paper and cut out each artwork's measurements at 1:12 scale, on which I'd write each artist's name and the piece's title. I also drew the measurements of each of the room's four walls on a long sheet of foam core, laid flat on a table, and having done so, Chuck would slide the little pieces of paper around, determining the placement of each piece.
As he did, I began a self-appointed task of going back through all 150 works of art and making scale drawings (or sculptures) of each. Taking mat board that I had cut down to the same 1:12 scale, I drew each piece either by eye with graphite pencil if the piece was black and white, colored pencils if it was a color photo or painting, or with clay if it was a sculpture.
It took a few weeks to do them all, and don't ask me why I was allowed to do so on the clock. Perhaps Chuck could sense my enthusiasm. After I finished, and he had positioned the original set where he wanted them, I built a three dimensional scale model of the room with foam core walls on a medium-gray mat board floor and placed my second set of drawings within it, gluing each piece to the walls or to the little foam shelves that lined much of the room.
One day, the Chief Curator of Painting and Sculpture at MoMA, Kirk Varnadoe, visited the studio, viewed the model and suggested that it be placed on a pedestal in the hall outside of the show. Chuck agreed, and, of course, I was elated to have what I've since, tongue in cheek, called my solo show at the Museum of Modern Art.
photos by Dick Robinson
Curious that in some ways my current project, slated for a solo museum show, parallels the one I've just recounted.
As it was for the work I did for the MoMA show, however, I'm doing working drawings – preparatory sketches – drawings in the service of something rather than ends in and of themselves, these days. As was also true back then, I'm doing the drawings more for the sheer enjoyment of drawing than for any real need of the information they provide me. Back then, the drawings weren't truly needed for the MoMA show; the original set was sufficient to the task. Today, the information I'm needing to gather to create the final form of my show could happen much faster thanks to copy machine, projector, and computer.
Faithful shop-built GoPro extension arm taking progress pics
But here's what you have to ask yourself:
Is the end goal truly the goal, or is the goal being lived out in the moment?
A central leitmotif of my upcoming show is, as mentioned, process. Not just process, but a revealing of the creative process – a look "behind the scenes", as it were, just like when DVD's first came out.
For the first few years that DVD's were produced, many included "behind the scenes" documentaries, revealing a bit of how the movies were made, often from the outset, interviewing the producer, director, and screenwriter, through to post production. I'd often enjoy watching the making of the art as much as the art itself.
I remember watching one such documentary for the movie Stranger Than Fiction, starring Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, and Maggie Gyllenhaal. They interviewed the writer, Zach Helm, who said he'd had a working relationship with the producer, Lindsay Doran, and that he called her up one day and said he had an idea for a film involving a guy whose watch tried to communicate with him. That's all he had. She said she loved it and to keep developing the idea.
Every few days or weeks Helm would call Doran with incrementally more of the story line fleshed out. Highly interesting to me is the rather odd way he wrote the story – he said he wrote the scene where Hoffman, playing Literature Professor Jules Hilbert, asks Ferrell, playing Harold Crick, questions to determine what kind of story he was unwittingly playing out with his life (a hilarious scene) prior to having any idea what proceeded or followed the scene. He didn't have any other characters or know anything more about what the story would eventually look like than Hilbert did in his office, investigating Crick's odd predicament.
I find it interesting that the producer would be willing to trust that Helm's inside-out process would result in something fully formed, and I find it curious and amazing that his process unfolded in such a non-linear, non-outlined way.
That's exactly what I'm involved in these days. It's what's been waking me at 2 or 3 am for the past five or six weeks, and will, I don't doubt, carry me through to completion. I say carry because that's exactly what it feels like – like riding a wave, or perhaps being carried along by a strong wind. It's what began, not coincidentally, if you ask me, with a couple of days of extremely windy weather outside. Winds that tore shingles off our roof and huge downtown trees. Winds that have often curiously signaled a change in attitude or in circumstance for me. Sweeping, it would seem, the cobwebs from my mind or heart. Carrying me along. Making my current effort rather effortless.
Much too early to predict how things will end up. It helps to know I've got a internal clock that does a good job of determining how I'm doing, time-wise, on a project.
It also helps to have written what, all assembled, would probably be a thick book's worth of blog posts that nearly all began the same way: with me waking early and creeping downstairs to the dining room table, opening my laptop, opening up Blogger, pressing the "new post" button (after hitting the "start" button on the Mr. Coffee) and wondering what I might possibly have to write in the next few hours that anyone might want to read. I can't think of a post I've had to abandon. (Ed. note – my first blog had over 300 long posts before I "retired" it.)
As for the museum's curators, though, I'm clueless as to what they are thinking. Then again, perhaps I do have an idea:
"So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do." – Jeremiah 18
Because it pleases them.
That's my best guess as to one of, if not the chief reason why good curators do what they do. For sure, it's why artists create art, macro lens, but more specifically, micro: why if you slice off the thinnest moment of time during the making of a piece of art and examine it under a microscope you'd find pleasure a primary impetus. That is, you'd find a primary motivation for that moment was eliminating the negative (displeasure) and accentuating the positive (pleasure). It's why a painter, for instance, mixes a certain color rather than another and places it just so on the canvas. Why a printmaker isn't satisfied with what, to you or I, might look like a perfectly good print, and puts it in the reject pile, or a motion-based artist spends so much time editing a piece that, to you or I, looked identical an hour and a half ago, before the changes. Why go to all the trouble? Who would've known?
They would've, that's who. And knowing their work wasn't living up to what they saw in their mind's eye, they would've been displeased. It's as simple as that.
Therefore, artists keep at it until they can lean back in their chair or workbench or stand back from the painting or leave the dark room and examine the work in the light to see if the blacks are rich enough or the composition avoids the pedantic or any of a million similar expressions of… pleasure.
That's not to say that artists don't sometimes compromise; compromise is a constant bedfellow.
There's a continuum from inferior to "spot on" that everyone must contend with in their work, from "good enough" on one side to "it's gotta be perfect" on the other, but my contention is that the needle, for artists, stays fairly fixed on the latter end, whatever their particular stylistic bent.
Years ago I heard the painter John Hull describe witnessing a young Jeff Koons first-hand as he was preparing one of his vacuum cleaner pieces in a museum where Hull worked as a guard.
He said Koons spent hours meticulously polishing and shining up the vacuum cleaners and the glass case housing them. To Hull, everything looked perfectly fine from the get go. Evidently not to Koons. It was then that Hull, on the fence about Koons up until that point, decided that he was the real deal. A huckster would've been satisfied with the condition of the brand new vacuums right out of the box, but not an artist.
Perhaps this is on my mind because I'm currently spending an inordinate amount of time, on my current art project, making stuff that may or may not ever be seen by anyone. Lovingly crafting a long extension arm for a GoPro camera. Easing its wood edges. Sanding off the table saw's burn marks. It won't work any better without burn marks, but they displease me. All to take progress pics that will probably never see the light of day. Why?
I think back to when I had a one-man-band business building all manner of things for all manner of clients. Back to one of my first set building projects in 1998. The client, a large computer storage systems business just outside of Boulder, Colorado, did quarterly live in-house videos, regularly hiring a set designer who, in turn, hired me to build backdrops for the shoots. The main element of the first set she hired me to build was supposed to look like a Shoji screen – one of those paneled Japanese dividers that separate rooms. I was given the dimensions for each screen and told they needed to hinge, accordion-like, behind the small stage.
I built the screens and used vellum rather than rice paper for the window portions. More compromise. Prior to attaching the vellum, but after I'd painted the frames with black paint, I decided I wanted to use the traditional Japanese method of hinging the screens where one takes leather or cord and winds it in and out of angled through-holes in the woodwork, a beautiful technique to hinge things I'd seen in one of my older copies of Fine Woodworking. The finished hinges worked like a charm.
However, no one – absolutely no one in the live audience, watching on camera, or on stage – either knew or cared that I'd taken the time to hinge the Shoji screens like this. It was invisible to everyone but me and the set designer, who, as I recall, shook her head at the irrationality of it.
It didn't matter to me that nearly no one else saw it. It didn't matter that those who did thought I was off my rocker to spend the time doing something no one would ever notice.
I wish I had a few photos of the hinges to show you, but I didn't take any. Back in the day, I was rather bad at documenting my work. Then again, I wasn't making the hinges to show them off.
So again, why did I do it? Why did I go to all that effort, rather than simply, and expeditiously, connecting the panels with standard, store-bought hinges?
There's a documentary about the German painter Gerhard Richter (called, appropriately enough, Gerhard Richter Painting) which, to some, may be just about as compelling as watching paint dry or reading long blog posts, but as with writing long blog posts, at least I enjoy it. It ends much as it begins, with Richter in studio working the camera for the documentary. The brief closing scene has him doing a panning shot of some off-white paintings in his pristine studio. The subtitles have him saying, "A panning shot for madam (presumably he's referring to Corinna Belz, the filmmaker). Man, this is fun."
If the viewer isn't a painter, they might think he means it's fun to be making a documentary of his work, and I'm sure it was. But it's quite plain to me he's talking about something else. And so I'll say it yet again. He may paint for a living, but he paints for pleasure. It's one of the central reasons we create. It's why, despite the effort, it hardly feels like work.


text:
ПАО «Совкомфло́т» — крупнейшая судоходная компания России, один из мировых лидеров в области морской транспортировки сжиженного газа, сырой нефти и нефтепродуктов, а также обслуживания и обеспечения морской добычи углеводородов.

Полное название — Публичное акционерное общество «Современный коммерческий флот», сокращенное — ПАО «Совкомфлот» («Совкомфлот»). Штаб-квартира — в Санкт-Петербурге.

Акционерное коммерческое предприятие «Советский коммерческий флот» (АКП «Совкомфлот») было создано на основании приказа Министерства морского флота СССР от 3 июня 1988 года. В дальнейшем на основании распоряжения Правительства Российской Федерации от 26.06.1995 № 863-р. оно было преобразовано в акционерное общество открытого типа «Современный коммерческий флот» (АО «Совкомфлот»). До проведения IPO 7 октября 2020 года 100 % акций АО «Совкомфлот» находилось в собственности Российской Федерации.

Входит в транспортный холдинг — «Группа компаний Совкомфлот (СКФ)», сокращенно — ГК Совкомфлот, специализирующийся на морской транспортировке энергоносителей. ГК Совкомфлот является одним из крупнейших морских перевозчиков в России  и имеет представительства, дочерние предприятия и крюинговые офисы в Москвe, Санкт-Петербурге, Новороссийске, Владивостоке, Одессе, Мадриде, Лондоне, Лимассоле, Сингапуре и Дубае. В настоящее время в холдинг СКФ входят компании: ПАО «Совкомфлот», ПАО «Новошип», «Юником», «Марпетрол», и др.

ГК Совкомфлот ведет благотворительную и спонсорскую деятельность в России и за рубежом. Среди проектов: поддержка водных видов спорта, пропагандирующие морскую профессию; поддержка системы детского и юношеского парусного спорта в России, включая учебное парусное судно «Мир», на котором проходят практику курсанты Государственной морской академии им. адмирала Макарова; спонсорство международных соревнований по плаванию «Кубок Владимира Сальникова» в Санкт Петербурге, помощь в проведении реставрационных работ в Спасо-Преображенском Валаамском монастыре на о. Валаам; поддержка созданного в Мурманске музея первого в мире атомного ледокола «Ленин»; участие в проекте реставрации крейсера-музея «Белфаст» в Лондоне, и др.

Из-за вторжения России на Украину, компания находится под санкциями стран Евросоюза, США и ряда других стран

История
История Совкомфлота начинается с письма министра морского флота СССР Т. Б. Гуженко председателю совета министров СССР А. Н. Косыгину от 23 марта 1973 года с просьбой разрешить министерству самостоятельно приобретать новые и подержанные суда за рубежом по схеме долгосрочного лизинга, или бербоут-чартера. Разрешение было дано и в последующие 15 лет по договору фрахтования судна без экипажа было зафрахтовано свыше 100 судов, первыми из которых стали два сухогруза дедвейтом 40 000 тонн — «Совфрахт» и «Совинфлот». Опыт, накопленный в ходе эксплуатации бербоутных судов и проведение выгодных для СССР коммерческих операций привел к организации в 1976 году при Министерстве морского флота СССР Валютного оборотного фонда коммерческих операций. В дальнейшем, в 1988 году, на его основе было организовано акционерное коммерческое предприятие «Советский коммерческий флот» (АКП «Совкомфлот»), что было уникальным явлением для централизованной советской экономики. АКП «Совкомфлот» был учрежден постановлением Совета Министров СССР и наделен правом работы на зарубежных рынках. Учредителями «Совкомфлота» выступили Министерство морского флота СССР и ведущие судоходные предприятия страны. К 1990 году общий дедвейт флота этой компании составил 1,8 млн тонн.

После распада СССР АКП «Совкомфлот» был преобразован в 1995 году в акционерную компанию открытого типа ОАО «Совкомфлот», 100 % акций которой перешли в федеральную собственность.

20 июня 2007 года президент России Владимир Путин подписал указ "Об открытом акционерном обществе «Современный коммерческий флот». На базе ОАО «Современный коммерческий флот» («Совкомфлот») и ОАО «Новороссийское морское пароходство» («Новошип») создавался транспортный холдинг в целях консолидации государственных активов в области морских грузоперевозок. 50,34%-ный пакет акций «Новороссийского морского пароходства» (Краснодарский край), принадлежавший государству, был внесен в качестве вклада Российской Федерации в уставный капитал открытого акционерного общества «Современный коммерческий флот» (г. Санкт-Петербург). При этом «Новошип» сохранил юридическую самостоятельность и продолжил уплачивать налоги в бюджет Краснодарского края. Ожидалось, что это объединение позволит создать транспортный холдинг, способный войти в первую пятёрку крупнейших танкерных перевозчиков мира.

Вместе с банком ВТБ, Махачкалинским и Новороссийским морскими торговыми портами был включён в план приватизации на 2020—2022 годы. За продажу акций этих компаний планировалось получить 3,6 млрд рублей ежегодно.

Получение новых судов

В июле 2010 года ГК Совкомфлот получил танкер типа «Aframax» «Олимпийский проспект». Танкер «Олимпийский проспект» дедвейтом 114,1 тыс. тонн имеет ледовый класс 1В (по международной классификации), предназначен для перевозки сырой нефти; длина судна — 250 м, ширина — 44 м, максимальная осадка — 15 м. Судно было спроектировано для работы в Балтийском регионе России, в том числе для транспортировки углеводородов из портов Приморск и Усть-Луга, полностью удовлетворяет всем национальным и международным требованиям по безопасности Классификационного общества DNV.

В январе 2013 года в строй вступили два новых судна СКФ: танкер типа «Aframax» «Анатолий Колодкин» и балкер «НС Якутия». «Анатолий Колодкин» — это третье судно, построенное в рамках соглашения между ОАО «Совкомфлот» и верфью «Звезда-DSME», совместным предприятием Объединенной судостроительной корпорации (Россия) и «Daewoo Shipbuilding & MarineEngineering» (Республика Корея). Балкер типа «Panamax» «НС Якутия» ледового класса 1B входит в серию, заказанную группой СКФ летом 2010 года, причем, первое судно серии «НС Энерджи» пополнило флот ГК Совкомфлот 19 ноября 2012 года.

В марте 2017 года вступил в строй СПГ-танкер класса Yamalmax «Кристоф де Маржери».

Собственники и руководство

82,8% акций компании принадлежат государству, а 17,2% частным инвесторам. Компания провела публичное размещение акций 7 октября 2020 года.

Председатель совета директоров — Сергей Франк, генеральный директор — Игорь Тонковидов.

Деятельность
«Группа компаний Совкомфлот (СКФ)» представляет собой корпорацию полного цикла — от судовладения до осуществления коммерческого и технического менеджмента, и предоставляет клиентам услуги по транспортировке энергоресурсов, в том числе:
 оперирование танкерным флотом в сегментах «Suezmax» (дедвейт 120—200 тыс. тонн) и «Aframax» (дедвейт 80-120 тыс. тонн);
 оперирование флотом танкеров-продуктовозов (дедвейт 17-47 тыс. тонн) и танкеров-химовозов (дедвейт 5-20 тыс. тонн);
 перевозка сжиженного природного и нефтяного газа;
 оперирование судами высокого ледового класса;
 логистическое обеспечение разработки шельфовых месторождений (челночные перевозки нефти в ледовых условиях, услуги по эксплуатации плавучих нефтехранилищ), услуги судов-снабженцев, ликвидация аварийных разливов нефти и нефтепродуктов;
 оказание портовых услуг, включая управление нефтяными терминалами и оперирование буксирами;
 технический менеджмент собственных судов и судов сторонних организаций.
По оценкам Bloomberg, к началу 2023 года у Совкомфлота имелось лишь 10 танкеров — «Суэцмаксов» и 32 «Афрамакса», что составляло меньше четверти от необходимого резерва для перевозки всей нефти из западных портов России.

Основными организациями в «Группе компаний Совкомфлот (СКФ)» являются:
 ПАО «Совкомфлот» (публичное акционерное общество «Современный коммерческий флот»), Санкт-Петербург. Управление компаниями, входящими в группу Совкомфлот, развитие долгосрочных индустриальных проектов в области морской транспортировки энергоносителей, логистики
 ОАО «Новошип» (открытое акционерное общество «Новороссийское морское пароходство»), Новороссийск. Техническое управление танкерным и сухогрузным флотом, подготовка и комплектование экипажей судов
 «Юником Менеджмент Сервисиз (Кипр) Лимитед», Лимассол. Техническое управление танкерным и сухогрузным флотом, подготовка и комплектование экипажей судов
 «Совкомфлот (ЮК) Лтд.», Лондон. Коммерческое управление флотом группы компаний Совкомфлот, фрахтование судов
 ЗАО «Роснефтефлот», Москва. Техническое и коммерческое управление буксирным флотом, оказание портовых услуг, в том числе управление нефтяными терминалами, предоставление агентских и лоцманских услуг
 ООО «Совкомфлот Варандей», Санкт-Петербург. Оперирование флотом арктических челночных танкеров в рамках долгосрочного проекта по транспортировке нефти с терминала «Варандей»
 «В. В. Марпетрол, С.A.», Мадрид. Оперирование флотом танкеров-химовозов и танкеров-асфальтовозов
 «СКФ Свайэр Оффшор Пти. Лимитед», Сингапур. Технический менеджмент и оперирование судами снабжения
 «Совкомфлот (Кипр) Лимитед», Лимассол. Финансовый учёт и подготовка консолидированной отчетности по МСФО, исполнение функций платежного центра группы компаний Совкомфлот

На 31 декабря 2009 года флот ГК Совкомфлот насчитывал 144 судна суммарным дедвейтом свыше 10 млн тонн. На начало 2013 года «Совкомфлот» эксплуатирует 158 судов общим дедвейтом 12,3 млн т. В портфеле заказов компании ещё 11 судов дедвейтом 1,3 млн т. Согласно информации ГК Совкомфлот, средний возраст эсплуатируемого танкерного флота — 8 лет (при среднемировом показателе — 12 лет). В ГК Совкомфлот работало 5682 моряков и 2213 человек берегового персонала.

Стратегическими направлениями деятельности ГК Совкомфлот являются:
 участие в индустриальных проектах транспортировки сжиженного природного (СПГ) и нефтяного газа (СНГ);
 специализация на судах ледового класса, способных работать на Балтике и в районах крайнего Севера, включая челночные перевозки в Арктике.

Выручка компании по МСФО в 2008 году составила $1,63 млрд, чистая прибыль — $406,2 млн.

По итогам 2018 года «Совкомфлот» получил $11,9 млн чистой прибыли по МСФО против убытка в $106,2 млн в 2017 году. Чистый убыток компании по МСФО снизился в 2,5 раза и составил $45,6 млн.

Санкции
15 марта 2022 года, на фоне вторжения России на Украину, судоходная компания была внесена в санкционные списки Евросоюза как производившая продукцию военного назначения, использовавшуюся во время вторжения.

Ранее, 24 февраля 2022 года, компания была включена в санкционные списки Канады и США

Также «Совкомфлот» находится в санкционных списках Великобритании, Швейцарии, Австралии, Украины и Новой Зеландии

Рейтинги

Мировой рынок спроса и предложения на услуги по транспортировке энергоносителей морскими путями нестабилен и изменчив, что не может не отражаться на показателях отдельных компаний. Журнал «Tanker Shipping Review» в 2011 году в рейтинге 30 наиболее крупных танкерных компаний мира поместил Совкомфлот на шестое место с пометкой, что компания занимает первое место по перевозкам в северных широтах. Согласно ежегодному рейтингу 10-ти ведущих компаний в мире занимающихся танкерными перевозками немецкого Института торгового судоходства и логистики (Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik — ISL), на 1 января 2012 года Совкомфлот занял второе место после японской компании Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (рейтинг составлен на основе Clarkson Research Services Tanker Register). Английский Ллойд-Лист (Lloyd's List) в ноябре 2012 года объявил, что Совкомфлот занял первое место по дедвейту флота среди крупнейших танкерных перевозчиков.

Примечания

Ссылки

См. также

 Объединённая судостроительная корпорация
 Совкомфлот на Твиттере

Компании Санкт-Петербурга
Судоходные компании России
Сжиженный природный газ
Морской транспорт России
Компании, подвергнутые санкциям в связи с вторжением России на Украину

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Please allow 2 week for processing and delivery of orders.
$350 Each. Includes Archival Frame. Free Shipping. Published by Oppenheimer Editions.
$225 Each. $350 with archival frame. Free Shipping. Published by Oppenheimer Editions.
Joel Oppenheimer, Inc. specializes in original Audubon prints and artwork from the Golden Age of Natural History (17th through 20th Century) including Dr. Robert Thornton, Basilius Besler, and many others. Click Here to explore our collections or e-mail us at joppen@audubonart.com with any questions.
Joel Oppenheimer, Inc. is renowned for its state-of-the-art conservation and restoration laboratory. Our facility services museums, collectors and dealers throughout the nation. Our staff can analyze and perform corrective treatments for works of art on paper, paintings on canvas and photographic materials. At times the conservation lab parallels a hospital emergency room. We treat pictures that have suffered everything from floods to bullet holes.
As Conservators of works of art, we are committed to archival, museum-quality framing. We will not frame a work of art any other way. Our niche in the framing industry is to offer our clients the best quality available without compromise. In addition to strictly adhering to the use of archival materials and techniques, we provide superior attention to aesthetic qualities and details.


text:
package config

import "path/filepath"

func configPath() string {
  return filepath.Join("C:", "etc", "gobackuper", "agent.json")
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Will the color of the jerseys the New England Patriots wear in the Super Bowl impact how they play? Probably not, but with nearly two weeks till the big game, fans need something to talk about.
The Patriots announced Tuesday that they have elected to wear their white "away' uniforms despite being the so-called "home team" in this year's Super Bowl against the Philadelphia Eagles.
The Patriots pointed out on social media that the team is 3-0 while wearing white in Super Bowls under head coach Bill Belichick, and 3-1 overall. ESPN's Adam Schefter also pointed out that the team wearing white jerseys has won the Super Bowl in 12 of the last 13 seasons.
This is the Patriots' 10th overall trip to the Super Bowl. They're shooting for their sixth Super Bowl title.
The Jacksonville Jaguars collapsed in the fourth quarter of the AFC Championship game on Sunday as the Patriots came back to beat the visiting team 24-20.
"On the one hand, we could have won the game," Jacksonville linebacker Myles Jack told reporters after the game. "But on the other, Tom Brady is Tom Brady. We got Tom Brady'd again."
The Patriots face the Eagles on Feb. 4 in Super Bowl LII. The game kicks off at 6:30 p.m. on NBC10 Boston.
Will Gronk Be Cleared to Play in the Super Bowl?


Nicole Galli launched her own law firm in 2015. It always intrigued her why there was little data available on the number of women who own their own law firms. So she decided to start an organization dedicated to helping other women legal entrepreneurs start their own law firms.
The organization, Women Owned Law, made it a priority to start collecting data on women-owned law firms. The goal of the organization is to help other women legal entrepreneurs network, increase their visibility, and grow their influence by providing resources and tools.
Thus far, the organization has chapters in Philadelphia, New York and Washington, D.C., with plans to launch more chapters around the country later this year. Galli started the organization to fill a need to address women lawyers who are also women entrepreneurs. As Galli explained it, "I think that there is a real difference between being a woman lawyer and a woman entrepreneur. There are differences between practicing law and having your own practice … and there are huge differences between running a law firm and running another business."
The organization offers a networking opportunity for women lawyers who, as business owners, are all experiencing the same challenges of owning a business. While most of the members are women who own their own firms, the organization is also a welcome place for women who are thinking about starting their own law firm.


text:
En génie agricole un pickup ou ramasseur est un composant servant au ramassage de tiges fines (foin, paille, herbe à ensiler, plantes à fibres). Les principales machines utilisant des pickup comprennent les ramasseuses-presses, certains andaineurs, les ensileuses et les remorques autochargeuses, où le pick-up récupère la récolte (foin, paille, ensilage) d'un andain et la transfère vers un autre organe de la machine.

Construction
Le ramasseur se compose d'un arbre principal et, selon le fabricant, généralement de cinq arbres porteurs (peignes) disposés autour de cet arbre principal, auxquels sont fixées des dents souples. Les arbres porteurs sont guidés par l'arbre principal sur une trajectoire circulaire et oscillent éventuellement de façon à guider au mieux la matière récolter contre ou sur des tôles. Les dents ramassent d'abord la récolte, la soulèvent et la transfèrent vers un convoyeur qui dirige la matière vers un autre organe de la machine : démêleur, tambour hâcheur, chambre de compression.

Un pick-up oscillant est intéressant en terrains vallonnés pour s'adapter à la déclivité.

Sources et références

Machinisme agricole


text:
package com.vaadin.fluent.ui;

import com.vaadin.fluent.api.FluentWindow;
import com.vaadin.ui.Component;
import com.vaadin.ui.Window;

public class FWindow
        extends Window
        implements FluentWindow<FWindow> {

    private static final long serialVersionUID = 9181013092445662095L;

    public FWindow() {
        super();
    }

    public FWindow(String caption) {
        super(caption);
    }

    public FWindow(String caption, Component content) {
        super(caption, content);
    }

}


Studio Meraki is a design studio envisioned by Shweta Kaw, an architect with 12 years of experience in the industry including a successful role as a Sustainable Design Consultant in Singapore after completing her post-graduation (Msc. Building performance & Sustainability) from the prestigious National University of Singapore.
The Studio's practice is diverse and ranges from architecture, green building design, interior & furniture design as well as graphics.
As the name suggests, our intention is to aim for building happy and healthy spaces for a man to dwell in its habitat and nurture for him an improved sense of well being by paying attention to psychological & physiological comfort and hence garnering less distress levels in our society.


text:
Notacanthus är ett släkte av fiskar. Notacanthus ingår i familjen Notacanthidae.

Kladogram enligt Catalogue of Life:

Källor

Externa länkar

Strålfeniga fiskar
Notacanthus


text:
Der Waschsee ist ein See nahe dem Dorf Mechow (Gemeinde Feldberger Seenlandschaft) im Süden Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Er liegt im zum Naturschutzgebiet Krüselinsee und Mechowseen. Er besteht aus zwei Becken, dem kleineren Nordbecken und dem Südbecken. Oberirdisch ist er zu- und abflusslos, er entwässert unterirdisch über den naheliegenden Weutschsee.

Das Wasser des Sees ist nährstoffarm (mesotroph) und sehr klar (Sichttiefe über 3 m), die Badequalität wird als ausgezeichnet eingestuft.

Am nördlichen und am südöstlichen Ende des Nordbeckens befindet sich jeweils eine Badestelle mit einem Steg. Der See ist durchgängig von Wald umgeben.

Der See ist 890 Meter lang, die maximale Breite beträgt 300 Meter im Südbecken, das 16,5 Meter tief ist, und 190 Meter in Nordbecken, das 11 Meter tief ist.

Siehe auch
 Liste der Seen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Quellen
 Schriftenreihe d. Arbeitsgruppe Greifswald d. Institutes f. Landschaftsforschung Halle/S. u. d. Müritz-Museums Waren: Natur und Naturschutz in Mecklenburg, Band 23, Greifswald – Waren 1986

Einzelnachweise

See im Landkreis Mecklenburgische Seenplatte
Geographie (Feldberger Seenlandschaft)
See in Europa


Vishal is awaiting the release of his Ayogya which is the remake of the Telugu film 'Temper'. It has Raashi Khanna in the female lead which also has Parthiban, Pooja Devariya, KS Ravikumar and others.
Sundar C is currently directing an untitled movie with Vishal, the shooting of which has been going on in a faster pace. The movie is produced by Trident Arts and has Tamannaah as the female lead. Vishal has worked with Sundar.C earlier in Aambala.
The shooting for the movie has been going on in excotic locations of Turkey, Cappadocia (Azerbaijan). The recent update is that the team is shooting a complete action sequence which looks very powerful by the making stills of it. It is being shot by DOP Dudley and team, with extensive properties.
It was recently revealed that Mysskin is all set to collaborate with Mysskin for one of the most expected sequels, Thupparivaalan 2. Thupparivaalan is a 2017 crime thriller which opened to positive response from audiences and fans alike.
People looking for online information on Dudley, Sundar C, Tamannaah, Vishal will find this news story useful.


text:
Habeas Hints
Loaded on June 15, 2005 by Kent A. Russell published in Prison Legal News June, 2005, page 12
Filed under: Sentencing, Habeas Corpus. Location: United States of America.
This column is intended to provide habeas hints" to prisoners who are handling habeas corpus petitions as their own attorneys (in pro per). The focus of the column is post-conviction practice under the AEDPA, the 1996 law which now governs habeas corpus practice throughout the U.S.
EXHAUSTION UPDATE
Stay and Abeyance
Stay and abeyance" is the legal name for what happens when the federal court holds onto (stays and abets) a federal habeas petition while the petitioner goes back to state court to exhaust one or more unexhausted claims that were included in the petition. In this column we will look at this important means for timely exhausting habeas corpus claims, and I'll give you some Habeas Hints" for how to most effectively employ stay and abeyance in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Rhines v. Weber, 124 S.Ct. 1528 (2005).
A mixed" habeas petition is one which contains at least one exhausted claim and one or more unexhausted claims. A federal court has no power to hear a mixed petition, and must either (1) dismiss the entire petition without prejudice (meaning you can file again in federal court without running into the successive petition bar); or (2) allow the petitioner to dismiss the unexhausted claims and go forward in federal court with an amended petition containing only the exhausted claims. Making either one of these choices creates a dilemma for the federal petitioner: The problem with alternative (2) is that it requires the permanent dismissal of unexhausted claims (or unexhausted facts within otherwise exhausted claims) which might, upon exhaustion, have a better chance of success than the already exhausted claims. The problem with (1) is that, although the dismissal is without prejudice, the time spent in federal court prior to the dismissal is not tolled against the AEDPA statute of limitations. Usually, by the time a federal court gets around to issuing a ruling forcing the petitioner deal with a mixed petition, whatever time remained on the statute of limitations will have been used up, so that it will be impossible to go back to state court, exhaust, and come back to federal court without the new federal petition being barred by the statute of limitations.
In an effort to deal with the dilemma posed above, lower federal courts began offering the petitioner stay and abeyance" as a third alternative: allowing the petitioner to dismiss the unexhausted claims but staying the federal petition instead of dismissing it while the petitioner returned to state court to exhaust his un-exhausted claims. See, e.g., Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Stay and abeyance allows the petitioner to have his cake and eat it, too: The petitioner gets to return to state court to exhaust the un-exhausted claims, but as long as s/he files the state exhaustion petition promptly after dismissing his un-exhausted claims and promptly returns to federal court after exhaustion is completed, the original federal petition, which has been stayed, will be there waiting, and the petitioner can simply move to amend the stayed petition to add the newly exhausted claims.
Given the obvious benefits of the stay and abeyance alternative, most petitioners who were given the option of stay and abeyance elected to use it. Meanwhile, several circuit courts began holding that it was error for a district court not to offer stay and abeyance as an alternative to dismissal. As a result, some petitioners began to abuse stay and abeyance by dragging their feet on exhausting claims in state court until just before the AEDPA statute of limitations was about to run, and then falling back on stay and abeyance as a means of taking several more months or even years to exhaust habeas claims that, with due diligence, could have been exhausted before the federal petition was filed in the first place. This potential for abuse caused the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review.
In Rhines, a federal petitioner had filed his petition several months ahead of the statute of limitations, but by the time the district court got around to finding that it was a mixed petition, all of the remaining time on the AEDPA statute of limitations had been used up. Hence, and because the petitioner did not want to dismiss his un-exhausted claims, the district court granted stay and abeyance of the federal petition while the petitioner returned to state court to complete exhaustion, allowing him to return to federal court after state exhaustion was completed and staying the federal petition in the meantime. Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit, which had previously held that stay and abeyance was only authorized in truly exceptional circumstances, wiped out the stay and ordered the petitioner to return to district court to pursue his only remaining option to dismiss his un-exhausted claims and proceed without them. The petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court, and the Court took the case.
On the one hand, certain members of the Court were concerned that abuse of the stay and abeyance procedure was encouraging the same kinds of delays and lack of diligence that the AEDPA statute of limitations was designed to do away with. Other justices, however, felt that there was a continued need for stay and abeyance as a safety valve for federal habeas corpus petitioners, most of whom file their petitions without the assistance of lawyers, to timely exhaust claims that, for some good reason, had not been exhausted before it came time to file the federal habeas petition. These competing considerations produced an opinion in Rhines that is a mixed bag for petitioners. The good news is that the Supreme Court upheld the discretion of a district court judge to order stay and abeyance as an alternative to a dismissal. The bad news is that the Court, in an effort to curb abuses, held that stay and abeyance is only to be used henceforth in limited circumstances, namely where the petitioner can show: (a) good cause for the failure to exhaust the un-exhausted claims before filing in federal court; and (b) that the un-exhausted claims are potentially meritorious. Furthermore, the Court held that, where a stay was allowed, it had to be conditional upon a strict time limit (30 days was suggested) within which the petitioner would have go back to state court to exhaust and, after exhaustion is completed, return to federal court.
The Rhines decision should serve as a warning to petitioners that the availability of the stay and abeyance procedure will be more limited than it has been in the past. On the other hand, because stay and abeyance is still a viable option, a petitioner whose AEDPA statute of limitations is about to run should always file a federal habeas corpus petition before the AEDPA time runs out, and then should consider the following suggestions in attempting to obtain stay and abeyance in the wake of the Rhines decision:
1.	There's no need to address the stay and abeyance issue in the petition. Instead, wait until the Respondent raises the issue in a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the petition is a mixed petition, containing claims that are unexhausted. Upon receipt of such a motion, the court will typically issue a briefing schedule, giving you a date by which you must file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Your Opposition (which you must file in the time limits imposed or after timely applying for and receiving an extension of time), is the place to address the stay and abeyance option.
2.	File the following documents as part of your Opposition: [1] Opposition to Motion to Dismiss; [2] Motion For Stay and Abeyance; [3] Proposed First Amended Petition; and [4] Points and Authorities in Support of Opposition.
3.	Document #1 should be a brief summary-type document, stating that Respondent has moved to dismiss and that you are opposing the motion on the grounds that, although the petition does contain un-exhausted claims, you are seeking a stay and abeyance" of the petition so that the federal petition can be stayed while you return to state court to exhaust your un-exhausted claims. Also state in your Opposition that you are filing a proposed First Amended Petition that temporarily deletes the un-exhausted claims; that you are asking the court to file the amended petition, conditional upon the court granting your motion to stay it while you return to state court to exhaust; that you agree both to file your state exhaustion petition and to return to federal court after exhaustion is completed within 30 days or whatever other time limit the court may set; and that, upon returning to federal court after completion of exhaustion, you will promptly submit a Second Amended Petition that will contain both the previously exhausted claims which were stayed, along with the newly-exhausted claims.
4.	Document #2 is your Motion for Stay and Abeyance, and is the most important one. It should start out with a Notice of Motion, in which you formally notify Respondent and the court that you are moving for a stay pending exhaustion. Next, you must provide a Declaration in Support of Motion for Stay and Abeyance, which will contain the facts you are alleging in support of the stay. Although the facts contained in the declaration will, of course, vary from case to case, it will always be necessary to state facts which provide good reasons why you did not exhaust the un-exhausted claims before filing in federal court. In providing your reasons, you should mention in a first paragraph that you have been incarcerated since your conviction, that you are indigent, that prison law library services are limited, etc. However, that sort of thing is not going to be enough to get a stay, since every prisoner labors under the same difficulties. Therefore, you must go on in succeeding paragraphs to state reasons specific to your case which made it impossible to exhaust your claims before filing in federal court. Some examples of facts you should always state if you can, supported by as much detail as possible, are: (a) continuing investigation initiated since the trial and/or appeal; (b) delays caused by your appellate attorney's failure to get you all of the files and documents promptly after the appeal was concluded; (c) any other delays caused by ineffective assistance of any of your previous attorneys; (d) claims that have been only recently discovered, for whatever reasons; (e) new evidence coming to light since the trial was over; and (f) new law bearing on your claims. After stating facts explaining good cause for your failure to exhaust previously, state in a separate paragraph that your claims are potentially meritorious" because they raise claims based on the violation of your rights under the U.S. Constitution, and because the facts you have alleged in the petition, if taken as true, are sufficient to merit relief. Last, include a final paragraph stating that any delay in exhausting your claims is solely the result of the facts you have alleged in your declaration, and not the result of any intentionally dilatory (delaying) litigation tactics.
5.	To prepare Doc. #3, simply delete the un-exhausted claims from your original petition and entitle it Proposed First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
6.	Doc. #4, the Points and Authorities, should include a citation to Rhines, and should argue that you have satisfied its requirements, namely that there is good cause for your failure to exhaust previously, and that your unexhausted claims are, at the very least, potentially meritorious.
7.	If the court grants you a stay, then consider exhausting in the fastest possible way. For example, in California, you need only file in the California Supreme Court to exhaust your claims, rather than starting out at superior court level and working your way up though the Court of Appeal.
8.	If the court refuses you a stay, and if you have to dismiss your unexhausted claims to avoid a statute of limitations bar, then be prepared to do so. However, you might want to first consider asking the district court for permission to appeal and for a stay while you are appealing the court's denial of your motion for stay and abeyance.
Kent A. Russell specializes in habeas corpus and post-conviction cases. He is the author of the California Habeas Handbook, which explains habeas corpus and the AEDPA. The latest edition (Ed. 4.04, revised Dec. 2004) is now shipping and can be purchased with a check or money order for $29.99 (cost is all-inclusive for prisoners, others pay $5 extra for postage and handling; no order form necessary), directly from the Law Offices of Russell and Russell, 2299 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA 94115."
Rhines v. Weber
124 S.Ct. 1528 (2005).
Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (U.S. 03/30/2005)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[2] No. 03-9046
[3] 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440, 73 USLW 4263, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3696, 5 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2714, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2714
[4] March 30, 2005
[5] CHARLES RUSSELL RHINES, PETITIONER
DOUGLAS WEBER, WARDEN
[6] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
[7] OCTOBER TERM, 2004
[8] Argued January 12, 2005
[9] After petitioner Rhines' state conviction for first-degree murder and burglary became final and his state habeas petition was denied, he filed a federal habeas petition. Because the 1-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was tolled while his state petition was pending, see 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2), he had more than 11 months before the limitations period expired. However, by the time the District Court ruled that eight of his claims had not been exhausted in state court, the limitations period had run. If the court had dismissed his "mixed" petition, Rhines would have been unable to refile after exhausting his claims, so the court decided to hold his federal petition in abeyance while he presented his unexhausted claims in state court, provided that he commenced the state proceedings within 60 days and returned to the District Court within 60 days of completing the exhaustion. The Eighth Circuit, which had previously held that a district court has no authority to hold mixed petitions in abeyance absent truly exceptional circumstances, vacated the stay and remanded the case for the District Court to determine whether Rhines could proceed by deleting unexhausted claims.
[10] Held: A district court has discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to the state court in the first instance and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected petition. Pp. 3-8.
[11] (a) Fourteen years before Congress enacted AEDPA, this Court held that federal district courts may not adjudicate mixed petitions but must give state courts the first opportunity to decide a petitioner's claims; imposed a "total exhaustion" requirement; and directed federal courts to effectuate that requirement by dismissing mixed petitions without prejudice and allowing petitioners to return to state court. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 518-519. At the time, there was no statute of limitations on federal habeas petitions. But that changed with AEDPA, which preserved Lundy's total exhaustion requirement while imposing a 1-year limitations period, which is tolled during the pendency of a state, but not a federal, habeas petition. As a result, petitioners such as Rhines run the risk of forever losing their opportunity for federal review of their unexhausted claims. Even a petitioner who files early cannot control when a district court will resolve the exhaustion question. The gravity and difficulty of this problem has led some district courts to adopt the "stay-and-abeyance" procedure at issue. Pp. 3-5.
[12] (b) AEDPA does not deprive district courts of the authority to issue stays that are a proper exercise of their discretion, but it does circumscribe that discretion. Any solution to this problem therefore must be compatible with AEDPA's purposes. Staying a federal habeas petition frustrates AEDPA's objective of encouraging finality of state court judgments by allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution of the federal proceedings, and it undermines AEDPA's goal of streamlining federal habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner's incentive to exhaust all his claims in state court before filing his federal petition. Thus, stay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances. Because granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner's failure to present his claims first to the state courts, stay and abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims. Even if good cause existed, the district court would abuse its discretion if it granted a stay when the unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Where stay and abeyance is appropriate, the district court's discretion is still limited by AEDPA's timeliness concerns. If a district court does not place reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back, petitioners, especially capital petitioners, could frustrate AEDPA's finality goal by dragging out indefinitely their federal habeas review. And if a petitioner engages in abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay, the district court should not grant a stay at all. On the other hand, it likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay and dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that he engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Such a petitioner's interest in obtaining federal review of his claims outweighs the competing interests in finality and speedy resolution of federal petitions. For the same reason, if the court determines that stay and abeyance is inappropriate, it should allow the petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted ones if dismissing the entire petition would unreasonably impair the petitioner's right to obtain federal relief. Pp. 5-8.
[13] 346 F. 3d 799, vacated and remanded.
[14] O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined.
[15] On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit Court Below: 346 F. 3d 799
[16] Roberto A. Lange, by appointment of the Court, 543 U. S. ___, argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
[17] Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General of South Dakota, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Craig M. Eichstadt, Deputy Attorney General.
[18] A brief of amicus curiae urging reversal was filed for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Pamela Harris and David M. Porter.
[19] A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the State of California et al. by Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. de Nicola and Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, and Christopher L. Morano, Chief State's Attorney of Connecticut, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Troy King of Alabama, Terry Goddard of Arizona, Mike Beebe of Arkansas, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Thurbert E. Baker of Georgia, Mark J. Bennett of Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Steve Carter of Indiana, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Kelly A. Ayotte of New Hampshire, Patricia A. Madrid of New Mexico, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Jim Petro of Ohio, Gerald J. Pappert of Pennsylvania, Paul G. Summers of Tennessee, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, Jerry W. Kilgore of Virginia, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Crank of Wyoming.
[20] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice O'Connor
[21] 544 U. S. ____ (2005)
[22] We confront here the problem of a "mixed" petition for habeas corpus relief in which a state prisoner presents a federal court with a single petition containing some claims that have been exhausted in the state courts and some that have not. More precisely, we consider whether a federal district court has discretion to stay the mixed petition to allow the petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to the state court in the first instance, and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected petition.
[23] I.
[24] Petitioner Charles Russell Rhines was convicted in South Dakota state court of first-degree murder and third-degree burglary and sentenced to death. His conviction became final on December 2, 1996, when we denied his initial petition for certiorari. Rhines v. South Dakota, 519 U. S. 1013. On December 5, 1996, Rhines filed a petition for state habeas corpus. App. 32. The state court denied his petition, and the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed on February 9, 2000, Rhines v. Weber, 2002 SD 19, 608 N. W. 2d 303. Rhines filed his pro se petition for federal habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254 in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on February 22, 2000. App. 3. Because the 1-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was tolled while Rhines' state habeas corpus petition was pending, see 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2), he still had more than 11 months left before the expiration of the limitations period.
[25] With the assistance of court-appointed counsel, Rhines filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and statement of exhaustion on November 20, 2000, asserting 35 claims of constitutional defects in his conviction and sentence. App. 39-60. The State challenged 12 of those claims as unexhausted. Id., at 72-79. On July 3, 2002, approximately 18 months after Rhines had filed his amended federal habeas corpus petition, the District Court held that 8 of the 35 claims had not been exhausted. At this time, the AEDPA 1-year statute of limitations had run. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 181-182 (2001) (holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendancy of a federal petition). As a result, if the District Court had dismissed Rhines' mixed petition at that point, he would have been unable to refile in federal court after exhausting the unexhausted claims. Rhines therefore moved the District Court to hold his pending habeas petition in abeyance while he presented his unexhausted claims to the South Dakota courts. On July 3, 2002, the District Court granted the motion and issued a stay "conditioned upon petitioner commencing state court exhaustion proceedings within sixty days of this order and returning to this court within sixty days of completing such exhaustion." App. 136. In compliance with that order, Rhines filed his second state habeas corpus petition on August 22, 2003.
[26] The State appealed the District Court's stay of Rhines' mixed petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Relying on its decision in Akins v. Kenney, 341 F. 3d 681, 686 (2003) (holding that "a district court has no authority to hold a habeas petition containing unexhausted claims in abeyance absent truly exceptional circumstances" (internal quotation marks omitted)), the Court of Appeals vacated the stay and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether Rhines could proceed by deleting unexhausted claims from his petition. 346 F. 3d 799 (2003). We granted certiorari to resolve a split in the Circuits regarding the propriety of the District Court's "stay-and-abeyance" procedure. 542 U. S. ___ (2004). Compare, e.g., Crews v. Horn, 360 F. 3d 146, 152 (CA3 2004); and Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F. 3d 374, 381 (CA2 2001), with 346 F. 3d 799 (2003) (case below).
[27] II.
[28] Fourteen years before Congress enacted AEDPA, we held in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982), that federal district courts may not adjudicate mixed petitions for habeas corpus, that is, petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. We reasoned that the interests of comity and federalism dictate that state courts must have the first opportunity to decide a petitioner's claims. Id., at 518-519. We noted that "[b]ecause `it would be unseemly in our dual system of government for a federal district court to upset a state court conviction without an opportunity to the state courts to correct a constitutional violation,' federal courts apply the doctrine of comity." Id., at 518 (quoting Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 204 (1950)). That doctrine " `teaches that one court should defer action on causes properly within its jurisdiction until the courts of another sovereignty with concurrent powers, and already cognizant of the litigation, have had an opportunity to pass upon the matter.' " 455 U. S., at 518.
[29] Accordingly, we imposed a requirement of "total exhaustion" and directed federal courts to effectuate that requirement by dismissing mixed petitions without prejudice and allowing petitioners to return to state court to present the unexhausted claims to that court in the first instance. Id., at 522. When we decided Lundy, there was no statute of limitations on the filing of federal habeas corpus petitions. As a result, petitioners who returned to state court to exhaust their previously unexhausted claims could come back to federal court to present their perfected petitions with relative ease. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 486 (2000) (dismissal without prejudice under Lundy "contemplated that the prisoner could return to federal court after the requisite exhaustion").
[30] The enactment of AEDPA in 1996 dramatically altered the landscape for federal habeas corpus petitions. AEDPA preserved Lundy's total exhaustion requirement, see 28 U. S. C. §2254(b)(1)(A) ("An application for a writ of habeas corpus . . . shall not be granted unless it appears that . . . the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State"), but it also imposed a 1-year statute of limitations on the filing of federal petitions, §2244(d). Although the limitations period is tolled during the pendency of a "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review," §2244(d)(2), the filing of a petition for habeas corpus in federal court does not toll the statute of limitations, Duncan, supra, at 181-182.
[31] As a result of the interplay between AEDPA's 1-year statute of limitations and Lundy's dismissal requirement, petitioners who come to federal court with "mixed" petitions run the risk of forever losing their opportunity for any federal review of their unexhausted claims. If a petitioner files a timely but mixed petition in federal district court, and the district court dismisses it under Lundy after the limitations period has expired, this will likely mean the termination of any federal review. For example, if the District Court in this case had dismissed the petition because it contained unexhausted claims, AEDPA's 1-year statute of limitations would have barred Rhines from returning to federal court after exhausting the previously unexhausted claims in state court. Similarly, if a district court dismisses a mixed petition close to the end of the 1-year period, the petitioner's chances of exhausting his claims in state court and refiling his petition in federal court before the limitations period runs are slim. The problem is not limited to petitioners who file close to the AEDPA deadline. Even a petitioner who files early will have no way of controlling when the district court will resolve the question of exhaustion. Thus, whether a petitioner ever receives federal review of his claims may turn on which district court happens to hear his case.
[32] We recognize the gravity of this problem and the difficulty it has posed for petitioners and federal district courts alike. In an attempt to solve the problem, some district courts have adopted a version of the "stay-and-abeyance" procedure employed by the District Court below. Under this procedure, rather than dismiss the mixed petition pursuant to Lundy, a district court might stay the petition and hold it in abeyance while the petitioner returns to state court to exhaust his previously unexhausted claims. Once the petitioner exhausts his state remedies, the district court will lift the stay and allow the petitioner to proceed in federal court.
[33] District courts do ordinarily have authority to issue stays, see Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248, 254 (1936), where such a stay would be a proper exercise of discretion, see Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 706 (1997). AEDPA does not deprive district courts of that authority, cf. 28 U. S. C. §2254(b)(1)(A) ("An application for a writ of habeas corpus . . . shall not be granted unless it appears that . . . the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State" (emphasis added)), but it does circumscribe their discretion. Any solution to this problem must therefore be compatible with AEDPA's purposes.
[34] One of the statute's purposes is to "reduce delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences, particularly in capital cases." Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U. S. 202, 206 (2003). See also Duncan, 533 U. S., at 179. AEDPA's 1-year limitations period "quite plainly serves the well-recognized interest in the finality of state court judgments." Ibid. It "reduces the potential for delay on the road to finality by restricting the time that a prospective federal habeas petitioner has in which to seek federal habeas review." Ibid.
[35] Moreover, Congress enacted AEDPA against the backdrop of Lundy's total exhaustion requirement. The tolling provision in §2244(d)(2) "balances the interests served by the exhaustion requirement and the limitation period," "by protecting a state prisoner's ability later to apply for federal habeas relief while state remedies are being pursued." Duncan, supra, at 179. AEDPA thus encourages petitioners to seek relief from state courts in the first instance by tolling the 1-year limitations period while a "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" is pending. 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2). This scheme reinforces the importance of Lundy's "simple and clear instruction to potential litigants: before you bring any claims to federal court, be sure that you first have taken each one to state court." 455 U. S., at 520.
[36] Stay and abeyance, if employed too frequently, has the potential to undermine these twin purposes. Staying a federal habeas petition frustrates AEDPA's objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution of the federal proceedings. It also undermines AEDPA's goal of streamlining federal habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner's incentive to exhaust all his claims in state court prior to filing his federal petition. Cf. Duncan, supra, at 180 ("[D]iminution of statutory incentives to proceed first in state court would . . . increase the risk of the very piecemeal litigation that the exhaustion requirement is designed to reduce").
[37] For these reasons, stay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances. Because granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner's failure to present his claims first to the state courts, stay and abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court. Moreover, even if a petitioner had good cause for that failure, the district court would abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Cf. 28 U. S. C. §2254(b)(2) ("An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State").
[38] Even where stay and abeyance is appropriate, the district court's discretion in structuring the stay is limited by the timeliness concerns reflected in AEDPA. A mixed petition should not be stayed indefinitely. Though, generally, a prisoner's "principal interest . . . is in obtaining speedy federal relief on his claims," Lundy, supra, at 520 (plurality opinion), not all petitioners have an incentive to obtain federal relief as quickly as possible. In particular, capital petitioners might deliberately engage in dilatory tactics to prolong their incarceration and avoid execution of the sentence of death. Without time limits, petitioners could frustrate AEDPA's goal of finality by dragging out indefinitely their federal habeas review. Thus, district courts should place reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back. See, e.g., Zarvela, 254 F. 3d, at 381 ("[District courts] should explicitly condition the stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court remedies within a brief interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to federal court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days after state court exhaustion is completed"). And if a petitioner engages in abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay, the district court should not grant him a stay at all. See id., at 380-381.
[39] On the other hand, it likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. In such circumstances, the district court should stay, rather than dismiss, the mixed petition. See Lundy, 455 U. S., at 522 (the total exhaustion requirement was not intended to "unreasonably impair the prisoner's right to relief"). In such a case, the petitioner's interest in obtaining federal review of his claims outweighs the competing interests in finality and speedy resolution of federal petitions. For the same reason, if a petitioner presents a district court with a mixed petition and the court determines that stay and abeyance is inappropriate, the court should allow the petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and to proceed with the exhausted claims if dismissal of the entire petition would unreasonably impair the petitioner's right to obtain federal relief. See id., at 520 (plurality opinion) ("[A petitioner] can always amend the petition to delete the unexhausted claims, rather than returning to state court to exhaust all of his claims").
[40] The Court of Appeals erred to the extent it concluded that stay and abeyance is always impermissible. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for that court to determine, consistent with this opinion, whether the District Court's grant of a stay in this case constituted an abuse of discretion.
[41] It is so ordered.
[42] Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, concurring.
[43] While I join the Court's opinion, I do so on the understanding that its reference to "good cause" for failing to exhaust state remedies more promptly, ante, at 7, is not intended to impose the sort of strict and inflexible requirement that would " `trap the unwary pro se prisoner.' " Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 520 (1982); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 487 (2000).
[44] Justice Souter, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
[45] I join the Court's opinion with one reservation, not doctrinal but practical. Instead of conditioning stay-and-abeyance on "good cause" for delay, ante, at 7, I would simply hold the order unavailable on a demonstration of "intentionally dilatory litigation tactics," ante, at 8. The trickiness of some exhaustion determinations promises to infect issues of good cause when a court finds a failure to exhaust; pro se petitioners (as most habeas petitioners are) do not come well trained to address such matters. I fear that threshold enquiries into good cause will give the district courts too much trouble to be worth the time; far better to wait for the alarm to sound when there is some indication that a petitioner is gaming the system.
More from Kent A. Russell:
Habeas Hints: Understanding and Satisfying the Strickland Test for IAC, May 15, 2018
Rundown on California Propositions 57 and 64, Jan. 10, 2017
Habeas Hints: Staring Down the Two-Headed Monster: Richter-Pinholster, Dec. 15, 2013
Habeas Hints: Staring Down the Two-Headed Monster: Richter-Pinholster, Nov. 15, 2013
Habeas Hints: Actual Innocence, Sept. 15, 2013
Habeas Hints: 2012 Supreme Court Habeas Highlights: Plea Bargaining Cases, Sept. 15, 2012
Habeas Hints: Expert Testimony in Habeas Cases, Aug. 15, 2011
Habeas Hints: The Year in Review, Feb. 15, 2011
Habeas Hints: Certificate of Appealability, June 15, 2010
HABEAS HINTS – CALIFORNIA COMMENT Pace and Bonner: Avoiding and Fighting "Untimeliness" Rulings Under California Law, Dec. 15, 2009
Ninth Circuit Reiterates Presumption of Innocence Remains Until Conviction, Grants Habeas Relief, Dec. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus, Actual Innocence/Claim of Innocence, Improper Comments.
Fourth and Fifth Circuits Reopen Decades-Old Cases for Habeas Relief Due to Brady Violations, Nov. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus, Brady Violations.
Federal Habeas Corpus: Time Limits for Filing, Nov. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus.
Sixth Circuit Finds IAC for Failure to Raise 'Clearly Foreshadowed' Change in Law on Appeal, Oct. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
Fifth Circuit Grants Habeas Relief Because Detective's Testimony of Witness Identification of Defendant Violates Confrontation Clause, Oct. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus, Confrontation Clause/Rights, Witnesses - Prior Statements/Testimony.
Sixth Circuit: Michigan Courts' Procedure Allowing Appellate Counsel's Withdrawal Unconstitutional, Oct. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus, Counsel - Withdrawal/Substitution of.
Ninth Circuit Clarifies Use of Rule 60(b) for Changes in Law, Sept. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus.
California Supreme Court Announces New Time Limit for Habeas 'Appeal' Stages, Clarifying Tolling for Federal Habeas Petitioners, Sept. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus, AEDPA, Tolling of Statutes of Limitations and Laches.
Justice Sotomayor Raises Due Process Concerns Over Eleventh Circuit's Use of Published Successive Habeas Denial Orders, Sept. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus, Denial of Due Process.
Fourth Circuit Grants 'SOS' § 2254 Petition Attacking Three-Decade-Old Murder Conviction Based on New Evidence, Sept. 15, 2020. Habeas Corpus, Evidence - Newly Discovered.


text:
Open Jobs >
Submission for Opportunity 3709
100/hr Trading System Front End Developer (JS, React). 12 Months. 25% Telecommute Contract. Chicago, IL et al. (L-3709) (A)
Contact LEVERAGEncy on this opp | Master Post | Show Full Submission Form
Who is Submitting?
Person Submitting is
Layer (submission would be your sub-contract) Employer (submission would be your w2) Candidate -- 1099, Independent, Sole Proprietor (we would contract with you). Candidate -- Employee (we would contract with your employer)
Submitter First Name
Submitter Last Name
Submitter Phone
DICE Other Source TechFetch Monster Indeed Partner Word of Mouth LinkedIN Other Job Board ZipRecruiter HAL
Tell us about the candidate
- Use Existing Candidate
Candidate First Name
Candidate Last Name
Candidate Email
* Residence Location
Enter in format "City, StateCode"
Loading Lookup Result:
* Resume
How does the candidate fare on critical attributes?
Front End Developer Roles
Last Used2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1-Beginner 2-Emerging 3-Stable 4-Lead 5-Master
Trading Systems (execution, etc.)
OpenFin and/or Finsemble (notate in comments which)
Enter City Loading
Enter in format "City, StateCode" or may not work
Lookup Result: