alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CLIFFORD MACKRELL,

Defendant

Criminal Action No. 21-276-1 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

(April 3, 2023)

Before the Court is Defendant’s [53] Motion for Transfer of Venue. Like myriad other 

defendants in January 6th cases, Defendant requests that the Court transfer this case to another 

district court, arguing that no impartial petit jury can be seated in this jurisdiction. Every single 

court of this jurisdiction has rejected at least one such request,

1 including this Court.2 In its prior 

opinions, this Court has already rejected the vast majority of Defendant’s arguments, and shall 

simply incorporate by reference its prior reasoning herein. See United States v. Eicher, Crim. A. 

No. 22-038 (CKK), 2022 WL 11737926 (Oct. 20, 2022); United States v. Chwiesiuk, Crim. A. No. 

21-536 (CKK), 2023 WL 2562517 (Mar. 17, 2023). The only issue this Court has yet to address 

is the effect of certain polls of District of Columbia residents regarding their feelings on individuals 

charged with criminal offenses arising from the insurrection of January 6th. ECF Nos. 53-1, 53-

2. 

1 E.g., United States v. Nassif, Crim. A. No. 21-421 (JDB), 2022 WL 4130841 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 

2022); United States v. Brock, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 3910549, at *5-6 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 

2022) (JDB) United States v. Garcia, Crim. A. No. 21-0129 (ABJ), 2022 WL 2904352, at *15 

(D.D.C. July 22, 2022); United States v. Bochene, 579 F. Supp. 3d 177, 181-82 (D.D.C. 2022).

2

 E.g., United States v. Eicher, Crim. A. No. 22-038, 2022 WL 11737926 (Oct. 20, 2022); 

United States v. Chwiesiuk, Crim. A. No. 21-536, 2023 WL 2562517 (Mar. 17, 2023).
2

These surveys are not new, and every court to address them has concluded that voir dire is 

necessary before transferring a case due to alleged prejudice in a jury pool. E.g., United States v. 

Rhodes, 610 F. Supp. 3d 29, 56-57 (D.D.C. 2022) (APM); United States v. Brock, --- F. Supp. 3d 

---, 2022 WL 3910549, at *7 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2022) (JDB); United States v. Rhine, Crim. A. No. 

21-687 (RC), 2023 WL 372044, at *4 (D.D.C. Jan. 24, 2023). For the reasons stated in those 

decisions, the Court concludes the surveys cited again in this case do not warrant transfer. As this 

Court has previously explained, relying wholesale on polling of uncertain methodological efficacy 

regarding January 6th as a whole is not an appropriate substitute for voir dire. See United States 

v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 64 n.43 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The Court will address the exact scope of 

voir dire at a later time. 

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant’s [53] Motion for Transfer of Venue is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2023 /s/

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

United States District Judge
- Memorial-201501-NJ
- NJ Transmittal
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4997

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interstate-connected

conduct relating to exotic animals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 19, 1994

Mr. BROWN of California (for himself, Mr. EDWARDS of California, Mr. BEILENSON, Mr. WILSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr.

MEEHAN, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. TORRES, Mr. FARR of California, Mrs.

MALONEY, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. NADLER, Mr. MANN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr.

MORAN, Mr. SWETT, and Ms. PELOSI) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interstateconnected conduct relating to exotic animals.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Captive Exotic Animal

5 Protection Act of 1994’’.
2

•HR 4997 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS

2 FOR PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING

3 THEM.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 3 of title 18, United

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow6 ing:

7 ‘‘§ 48. Exotic animals

8 ‘‘(a) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign

9 commerce, knowingly transfers, transports, or possesses a

10 confined exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the

11 killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or the

12 collection of a trophy, shall be fined under this title or

13 imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

14 ‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘confined exotic

15 animal’ means a mammal of a species not historically in16 digenous to the United States that in fact has been held

17 in captivity for the shorter of—

18 ‘‘(1) the greater part of the animal’s life; or

19 ‘‘(2) a period of one year;

20 whether or not the defendant knew the length of the cap21 tivity.’’.

22 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

23 at the end of chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code,

24 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘‘48. Exotic animals.’’.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: MARTIN MUSONGE,

Debtor,

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

NATHANIEL BASOLA SOBAYO,

Appellant,

v.

HIEN THI NGUYEN; MARTIN

MUSONGE,

Appellees. No. 21

- 60024

BAP No. 20

- 1060

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Brand, Klein, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2022 * *

Before: S. R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Nathaniel Basola Sobayo appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 60024

Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing for lack of standing Sobayo’s appeal from

the bankruptcy court ’s order granting relief from the au tomatic stay

. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo issues of

standing. Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC v. Lehman Com

. Paper, Inc. (In re Palmdale

Hills Prop., LLC) , 654 F.3d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed Sobayo’s appeal because Sobayo , as a creditor,

lacked standing to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the

automatic stay. See Tilley v. Vucurevich ( In re Pecan Groves of A riz. ) , 951 F.2d

242, 245 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] creditor has no independent standing to appeal an

adverse d ecision regarding a violation of the automatic stay.”); see also Harkey v.

Grobstein (In re Point Ctr. Fin., Inc.) , 890 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 2018)

( “ [O] nly a person aggrieved, that is, someone who is directly and adversely

affected pecuniarily by a ba nkruptcy court ’ s order, has standing to appeal that

order.” ( internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 20 09).

Nguyen’s m otion to submit the case for decision without oral argument

(Docket Entry No. 18) and Sobayo’s motion to exceed the page limit , set forth in

the opening brief, are granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SMOOTHIE JUNGLE, INC., a Florida Corporation, and SMOOTHIE 

JUNGLE CAFE, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company,

Appellants,

v.

BERRY'S STATION CAFE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,

d/b/a BERRY’S STATION HEALTH FOODS, MARIANA DURLI, 

individually, LUAN P. MELO, individually, and GEOVANA P. DINEZ, 

individually,

Appellees.

No. 4D19-2765

[November 19, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Nicolas Richard Lopane, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-19-

005229.

Keith T. Grumer of Katz Barron, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Christopher N. Davis-Traina, Joseph D. Garrity, Christine Catherine 

Traina and Joshua W. Rosenberg of Garrity Traina, PLLC, Coconut Creek, 

for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN, JJ., and BELL, CAROLYN, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Read more of the January Dispatch**
    - January Photo Contest Winner: Fauquier County Sheriff’s Office
    - Director's Corner: Making Time for Mental Health
    - The 2020 Community Policing in Action Winners
    - Responding to Mental Health and Wellness Challenges: Ideas from the Field
    - Reduce Stress about Money: The Importance of Financial Counseling
    - Improving Officer Morale and Job Performance with a Head to Toe Wellness Program
    - How Ohio Helps Local Police Fight Human Trafficking
#### § 80.601 Scope of communications.

Stations on land in the Maritime Radiodetermination Service provide a radionavigation or radiolocation service for ships.
EXHIBIT 32

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

 I Dr. Dennis D. Keiser, President and Chief Executive Officer of Intrepid
Technology & Resources, Inc., (the "Company") , do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     -    the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB,  of  the  Company  for  the
          quarter  ended  March  31,  2005,  as  filed  with  the Securities and
          Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  fully  complies  with  the
          requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and
     -    the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents, in all
          material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: May 13, 2005

/s/ Dr. Dennis D. Keiser

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

Dennis D. Keiser

President and Chief Executive Officer



and,



I Dr. Jacob D. Dustin, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer of Intrepid
Technology & Resources, Inc., (the "Company") , do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     -    the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB,  of  the  Company  for  the
          quarter  ended  March  31,  2005,  as  filed  with  the Securities and
          Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  fully  complies  with  the
          requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and
     -    the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents, in all
          material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



Date: May 13, 2005

/s/ Dr. Jacob D. Dustin

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

Jacob D. Dustin

Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
**Read more of the September Dispatch** Fixing a Hole Where the Rain Gets In: Community Policing a Hurricane in Largo, FL
            Police are Victims Too: How to Protect Your Department from Cybercrime
            The COPS Office Turns 25!
            Concerns of Rural Law Enforcement: What We Heard from the Field 
             Engaging Communities Through Technology
             Ten Recruiting Tips for Finding Good Officers
             The L. Anthony Sutin Civic Imagination Award: St. Cloud, Minnesota
             The L. Anthony Sutin Civic Imagination Award: Charlotte, North Carolina
§ 217.117 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. ( a ) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.116 for the activity identified in § 217.110(a) may be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that: ( 1 ) The specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for the regulations under this subpart; and
( 2 ) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under the regulations under this subpart were implemented.
( b ) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the change, and solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
( c ) A LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.116 for the activity identified in § 217.110(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with Navy regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring for the regulations under this subpart; ( i ) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in a LOA: ( A ) Results from Navy's monitoring from previous years;
( B ) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; and
( C ) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by the regulations under this subpart or subsequent LOAs; and
( ii ) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS must publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and solicit public comment;
( 2 ) If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in a LOA issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.116, a LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notification would be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of the action.
§ 29.154 Under what circumstances will I forfeit my financial assurance? ( a ) You may forfeit all or part of your financial assurance if we cannot secure your compliance with the provisions of your operations permit or a provision of this subpart. The part of your financial assurance forfeited is based on costs to the Service to remedy your noncompliance.
( b ) In addition to forfeited financial assurance, we may temporarily: ( 1 ) Prohibit you from removing all structures, equipment, or other materials from your area of operations;
( 2 ) Require you to secure the operations site and take any necessary actions to protect Service-administered lands and waters, and resources of the refuge; visitor uses; and visitor or employee health and safety; and
( 3 ) Suspend review of any permit applications you have submitted until we determine that all violations of permit provisions or of any provision of this subpart are resolved.
( 4 ) Seek recovery as provided in § 29.151 for all costs of reclamation in excess of the posted financial assurance.
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-27669 Doc 1 Filed 08/29/16 Entered 08/29/16 14:57:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.     PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
- A. Introduction
- B. Purpose and Need for Action
- C. The Issues
II.     THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
- A. Climate
- B. Air Quality
- C. Water Quantity and Quality
- D. Geology and Soils
- E. Vegetative Habitats and Habitat Management
- F. Wildlife and Biological Diversity
- G. Candidate, Threatened, and Endangered Species
- H. Public Use, Compatibility, and Environmental Education
- I. Cultural Resources
- J. Socioeconomic Aspects
III.     ALTERNATIVES, INLUCING THE PROPOSED ACTION
IV.    ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
- Alternative A: Ecosystem Approach (Proposed and Preferred Alternative)
- Alternative B: No Action
- Alternative C: Maximize Habitat Developments and Public Use Program
V.     CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
VI.     MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED/PREFERRED ACTION
VII.     CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS
VIII.     LIST OF PREPARERS
IX.     REFERENCES
APPENDIX
- A. Introduction
- B. Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 18 88

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Jo se ph Ant ho ny Favo rs
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Mi ch el le Hoo ve r; Em il y

Jo hn so n P ip er; Dani el Sto rk am p; Denn is Ben so n; Jea ni ne Herb ert ; Lo ri S wan so n; Ral ph Sch m idt; Man dy Torg ers on ; Ro b R os e; Dian na Mag aard ; Deb James; J ul i Ro se ; Be th Vird en ; J oa nn Fab ia n; Jef frey L . Pet ers on ; Deb or ah J. Sch ad eg g; Ch ris to ph er Bo rel an d; MarkMeh l; Jo hnKin g; Ann Lin ke rt (Zimm erm an ); J ean Seyko ra; Tho m as Lun dqui st ; Ch adMes ojed ec; Tod d Whi te ; (O.D.) Gui ll ic ks on ; Terry Kni es el ; J am ie Kozi sc h; Tracy Geb ha rt; Crai g B erg ; St ev e You ng st ; J on Hib be r; Ke vi n S ch le rer; Jen a Jo ne s; Ric k O’Con ne r; Eyvet te And ers on ; Offi ce o f Heal th Faci li ty Com pl ai nt s; DHS Offic e o f Mal tre atm en t Co m pl ai nt s; Offic e o f Lice ns in g fo r th e Sec ur it y Hos pi ta l; The St at e o f Mi nn es ot a; Reb eccaRan em
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta- Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Nov em

be r 4, 2 01 6 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 8, 2 01 6 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, andGRUENDER, Circu itJu dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __PER CURI AM.

Jo se ph Antho ny Fav o r s ap p e al s, fo ll owi ng th e en try of fin al jud gm en t, a d i s tr i ct co urt or de r gr an ti ng cert ai n de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns to di sm is s hi s 42 U.S

. C

.

1 § 19 83 act io n. Upo n de no vo rev ie w, se e Top ch ia n v. JP Mo rg an Ch as e Ban k, N.A., 76 0 F.3 d 84 3, 84 8- 49 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), we fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co urt’s an al y si s of Mr. Fav or s’s cl ai m s. W e gr an t th e m ot io n to supp le m en t th e reco rd fil e d by App el le es Ch ris to ph er Bo rel an d an d Mark Meh l, an d we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co urt. See 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Jo hn R. Tun he im , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St ate s D istric t Co urt fo r 1 th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Leo I. Bri sb oi s, Un it edSta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta

. -2

-
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos: 333-61054, 333-43790, 333-112361, and 333-122179 each on Form S-3, and Registration Statement Nos. 333-82283 and 333-16935 each on Form S-8, of our report dated March 25, 2005 (April 6, 2007 as to the effect ofdiscontinued operations and to the financial statement schedule) relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of BSML, Inc. (formerly BriteSmile, Inc.) for the year ended December 25, 2004 appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 30, 2006. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Oakland, California 

April 6, 2007
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6340

STEPHEN TSE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. E. GUNJA, Warden, United States Bureau of Prisons; M. ALBRIGHT; PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA99-3639-DKC) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Tse, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January 10, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on January 11, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Stephen Tse appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and denying his Motion for Relief from Judgment. We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Tse v. Gunja , No. CA-99-3639-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 21, 1999 & Jan. 11, 2000 * ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED