alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 5062** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
MARTA ERWIN PERRY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern D istrict of North Carolina , at New Bern
. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. ( 5:09

- cr - 00106

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un publ ished per curiam opinion

.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attor ney, Anne M. Hayes, William M. Gilmore, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: A federal grand jury indicted Marta Erwin Perry for possessio n of a firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) (2006) . Perry filed a motion to dismiss the indictment that the district court denied. Perry t hen entered a guilty plea to the charge , reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court sentenced Perry to eighty

- four months of imprisonment and Perry now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Perry argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment de

novo . United States v. Brandon , 298 F.3d 307 , 310 (4th Cir. 2002 ) (citation omitted) ; see United States v. Thornton , 554 F.3d 443, 445 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing whether state felony offense is a crime of violence de novo ). Perry argues that he was legally innocent of violating
§ 922(g)(1) because his prior convictions for breaking and entering, larceny , speeding to elude, and breaking and entering a vehicle were not punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. While Perry’s argument is concededly foreclosed by United States v. Harp , 406 F.3d 242, 246

- 47 (4th3 Cir. 2005), he argues that the s ubsequent decisions in United States v. Rodriguez , 553 U.S. 337 (2008), and United States v. Pruitt , 545 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2008) , have undermined this court’s holding in Harp . We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that our holding in Harp is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez . Further, to the extent Pruitt may be inconsistent with Harp , decisions by our sister circuits are simply not binding upon this court. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

 AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CR06-174 RSM

)

v. )

)

YOUNG HO CHANG, ) DETENTION ORDER 

)

Defendant. )

)

_____________________________ )

In re: Warrant for Arrest of Material Witness.

Date of Hearing: June 7, 2006.

The Court, having conducted an uncontested detention hearing pursuant to Title

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for

detention hereafter set forth, finds that no condition or combination of conditions which the

defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required.

Moreover, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C.§3144, it further appears that it is impracticable to

secure the presence of the defendant by subpoena. The Government was represented by

Karyn Johnson. The defendant was represented by Peter Avenia for Colin Fieman.

The Government moved for detention, to which the defendant stipulated reserving

the right to reopen the matter of detention pending new developments in the immigration

matter.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) The defendant is in the United States illegally and is a native and citizen of

Korea. A BICE detainer has been filed against the defendant, and he may

be deported to Korea making him unavailable for trial.

(2) The defendant is a convicted felon with an unknown background. 

Case 2:06-cr-00174-RSM Document 42 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -2-

(3) The defendant stipulated to detention.

Thus, there is no condition or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure

future court appearances.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) Defendant shall be detained pending appearance at trial and committed to

the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a correctional

facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving

sentences, or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private

consultation with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

Government, the person in charge of the correctional facility in which

Defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States

Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court

proceeding; and

(4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States,

to counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the

United States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2006.

AMonica J. Benton

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00174-RSM Document 42 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MIDLAND TRUCKING,

 Defendant(s).

 Case No. C06-154P

 MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman:

At the request of counsel, an extension of time to file the joint status report is granted. The

report will be due on July 5, 2006. All other FRCP 26-related dates are adjusted accordingly.

Failure to adhere to these deadlines may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this

action.

Filed this 6th day of June, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00400-JPD Document 6 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 1
October 4, 1956

No. 60277.

Suit 4860.

#### Dunlap, Alpers & Mott et al. *v.*United States.

A. R. D. 63 affirmed June 20, 1956. C. A. D. 624.
Before the Second Division,

March 12, 1959

No. 62843.

#### Bloch Winitz Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 314013-K(A), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of narrow woven fabrics of cotton similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C.D. 1944), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert A. Baker, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 87]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered June 17, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the first degree.

In satisfaction of a multicount indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of rape in the first degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of 8 to 16 years in prison. Defendant contends that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive in view of the fact that he was cooperative with his probation officer, has demonstrated remorse for his action, has been labeled learning disabled and was himself a victim of sexual abuse as a child. We do not find that these factors warrant a reduction of the sentence given defendant’s past history of sex crimes and the effect the subject crime has had upon the mentally retarded victim. Moreover, we do not find that County Court abused its discretion in failing to waive the mandatory surcharge.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

NOTICE OF INTENT TO RETURN NON-CASH 

COLLATERAL MATERIAL TO DEFENDANT’S 

COUNSEL OF RECORD- 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

UNITED STATES of AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HENRY CARL ROSENAU, 

 Defendant. 

CR06-157 MJP 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO RETURN 

NON-CASH COLLATERAL 

MATERIAL TO DEFENDANT’S 

COUNSEL OF RECORD 

 The above named defendant was ordered to surrender his Canadian pilot’s license to the 

Court pursuant to a special condition of the appearance bond, and posted the material with the 

Clerk on May 16, 2011. Judgment was entered in this matter on November 8, 2012 (dkt # 180). 

 Absence any objections, the Clerk will forward –without additional notice—the 

defendant’s Canadian pilot’s license to the defendant’s counsel of record thirty (30) days from 

the date of the filing of this notice. Objections to forwarding the material to the defendant’s 

counsel of record should be directed to the Court in the form of a motion, and should include the 

alternative action requested, as well as a proposed order. 

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 181 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

NOTICE OF INTENT TO RETURN NON-CASH 

COLLATERAL MATERIAL TO DEFENDANT’S 

COUNSEL OF RECORD- 2 

Dated this 4th day of April 2013. 

/s/ WILLIAM M. McCOOL 

William M. McCool 

District Court Executive/Clerk of Court 

/s/ PETER H. VOELKER

Deputy Clerk 

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 181 Filed 04/04/13 Page 2 of 2
DENY; Opinion Filed January 22, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01509
- CV IN RE SECURITY SYSTE MS, INC. , Relator Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 17
- 15848 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Evans Opinion by Justice Reichek Before the Court is relator Security Systems, Inc.’s December 9, 2019 petition for writ of
mandamus seeking relief from the trial court’s November 13, 2019 sanction order

. Among other things, the trial court ordered (1) a show cause hearing at which a corporate representative of SSI was to appear , (2) a forensic examination of SSI’s electronic devic es to be paid for by SSI, and (3) SSI to produce its corporate president and two other employees , who all reside out of state, for depositions in Dallas

. 1 In addition, the trial court struck a ll SSI ’s objections to respondent Global
Alarm Protection, Inc.’s First and Second Requests for Production

.

1 Although not briefed by the parties, the trial court’s order requiring the appearance of out

- of

- state witnesses who are not parties, corporate officers, or representatives to appear for depositions in Texas could potentially present a jurisdictional issue with respect to enforcement

. This issue is not ripe for determi nation at this point . Nevertheless, we do not question the trial court’s jurisdiction to use alternative means , including requiring SSI to pay relator’s expenses to travel for the depositions as opposed to having the witnesses travel to Texas.– 2

–

To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co

. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition , the mandamus record, real party’s response, and relator’s reply, we conclude relator has not shown it is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny rel ator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not
entitled to t he relief sought). We lift the stay issued by this Court on December 10, 2019.

191509 F

. P 05 /Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
## ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 05-13-01213-CR 

### OFFENSE: 2.02 Anthony Chamberlain v. The State 

### STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Dallas 

# 7*0-/5'

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 194th Judicial District Court DATE:05/27/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-1263564-M



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Anthony Chamberlain v.TheState 

### STYLE: of Texas 

# /)PteLL/?A/7^ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# leFu*?t> DATE: JUDGE: 

### wr 

### u^u^t^<~ CCA#: 

# 7fea-;s CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED:
____ PUBLISH: REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC RECORD
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

United States v. Jose Alfredo Verduzco, CR06-0168JCC - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-0168JCC

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER GRANTING 

v. ) STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

)

JOSE ALFREDO VERDUZCO, )

)

Defendant. ) )

THE COURT having considered the stipulation of the parties, the records and files

herein, including, but not limited to the defendant’s agreement to extend the time for trial,

hereby makes the following findings of fact:

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel

the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise

of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). In particular, the

Court takes note of ongoing discussions with the DEA.

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case and that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial

preparation and that these factors outweigh the bests interests of the public in a more

speedy trial within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date be continued from July 24,

2006, to October 30, 2006. 

Case 2:06-cr-00168-JCC Document 29 Filed 07/14/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

United States v. Jose Alfredo Verduzco, CR06-0168JCC - 2 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of time from July 11, 2006, up to and

including the new proposed trial date of October 30, 2006, shall be excludable time

pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, et. seq. Pretrial motions shall be

due September 28, 2006. 

DONE this 14th day of July, 2006. AUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

 s/ C. Andrew Colasurdo C. ANDREW COLASURDO

Special Assistant United States Attorney

WA Bar #27449

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101-1271

Telephone: (206) 553-4075

Fax: (206) 553-0755

E-mail: Andy.Colasurdo@usdoj.gov

(per telephonic approval) 

JOHN CROWLEY

Attorney for Jose Alfredo Verduzco

Case 2:06-cr-00168-JCC Document 29 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 10 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 1 of 4

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 10 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 10 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 10 Filed 06/02/2006 Page 4 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KHALID O. RAHMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5262 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The motions for summary judgment of Defendants Stephen E. Friedrick, M.D. and

C.Z. Andersen, M.D. (Dkt. # 41 and 43) (Dkt. # 42) are GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Stephen E. Friedrick, M.D. and C.Z. Andersen,

M.D. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 14th day of September, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05262-BHS Document 46 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-mj-05064-JKA Document 1 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:06-mj-05064-JKA Document 1 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:06-mj-05064-JKA Document 1 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:06-mj-05064-JKA Document 1 Filed 03/29/06 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:06-mj-05064-JKA Document 1 Filed 03/29/06 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:06-mj-05064-JKA Document 1 Filed 03/29/06 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:06-mj-05064-JKA Document 1 Filed 03/29/06 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:06-mj-05064-JKA Document 1 Filed 03/29/06 Page 8 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

C06-173-RSM-MJB 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN WASHINGTON OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LAMONE T. BLUE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DOC-SOU-MCC, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-173-RSM-MJB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On June 19, 2006, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

however the Court declined to serve the Complaint. Dkts. # 18 and 2, respectively.

Alternatively, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend his complaint. An amended

complaint (Dkt. # 23) was filed. After careful review, the Court finds that the previously

identified deficiencies were not corrected and thus, the Amended Complaint remains

deficient.

It is therefore recommended that the Amended Complaint be dismissed under Title

Case 2:06-cv-00173-RSM Document 28 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

C06-173-RSM-MJB 2

28 U.S.C. §1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A proposed Order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2007.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00173-RSM Document 28 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32

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


I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of TGFIN Holdings, Inc.


                              By:  /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert
                              Name: Scott Emerson Lybbert
                              Title: Chief Executive Officer





I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of TGFIN Holdings, Inc.


                              By: /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert
                              Name: Scott Emerson Lybbert
                              Title: Chief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION OF 

WITNESS DEPOSITION- 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES of AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HENRY C. ROSENAU, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. CR06-157 MJP 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

AUTHORIZATION OF WITNESS 

DEPOSITION 

The Court, having received and reviewed: 

1. Government’s Motion for Authorization of Witness Depositions (Dkt. No. 27) 

2. Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to Government’s Motion for Authorization of 

Witness Depositions (Dkt. No. 28) 

and all attached declarations and exhibits, makes the following ruling: 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. 

The party seeking a deposition bears the burden of demonstrating that “exceptional 

circumstances” require the preservation of testimony through a deposition. United States v. 

Kelley, 36 F.2d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1994)(citing United States v. Ismaili, 828 F.2d 153, 159 (3rd 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION OF 

WITNESS DEPOSITION- 2 

Marsha J. Pechman 

United States District Judge 

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 935, 108 S.Ct. 1110 (1988); accord United States v. Drogoul, 

1 F.3d 1546 911th Cir. 1993). The government has made no showing of exceptional 

circumstances. 

The denial is without prejudice and the government is free to resubmit the request, 

accompanied by sufficient corroborating facts to satisfy the “exceptional circumstances” 

requirement. Among the questions which came to the Court’s mind upon reviewing the motion 

were: 

Is the prospective deponent’s refusal to travel to the United States to be deposed merely a 

personal preference? Are there any factors which prevent this witness from crossing the U.S. – 

Canadian border? 

What are the circumstances which necessitate preserving this witness’s testimony? 

Would it be possible, through the use of Skype or some other video conferencing 

technology, to secure the witness’s testimony at trial without the necessity of traveling to Canada 

for a deposition? 

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 

Dated September 7, 2011. 

 A
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40796 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BOBBY JAMES REECE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1-95-CR-95-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

June 26, 1997

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Bobby James Reece has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

and we have independently reviewed the brief and record, as well

as Reece’s response to counsel’s motion, and found no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.