alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tomas Vega ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10022.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern Dis*362trict of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raymond J. Rodgers, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Tomas Vega Ortiz raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
STATE OF MAINE

Penobscot, ss.

Supreme Judicial Court Law Term, June, 1939.

#### June E. Estabrook *vs.*Ford Motor Company.

Thaxter, J.

This is a companion case to *Curtis G. Estabrook*v. *Ford Motor Company*decided this day. As the issue in each case is identical, the entry will be the same.

*Exceptions overruled.*
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ARTHUR JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5813RJB

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Judge J.

Kelley Arnold, United States Magistrate Judge, and 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 ALJ erred as described in the report;

(3) the matter is therefore REMANDED to the administration for further consideration; and

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff's counsel, defendant's counsel

and Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05813-RJB Document 18 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6145

EARL LOCKLEAR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE W. KENWORTHY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:05-hc-00744-D)

Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 7, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Earl Locklear seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Locklear has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 15

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify

the intent of the Constitution to neither prohibit nor require public

school prayer.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 6, 1997

Mr. BYRD introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to clarify the intent of the Constitution to neither

prohibit nor require public school prayer.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes

6 as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legisla7 tures of three-fourths of the several States within seven

8 years after the date of its submission to the States for

9 ratification:
2

•SJ 15 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution, or amend3 ments thereto, shall be construed to prohibit or require

4 voluntary prayer in public schools, or to prohibit or require

5 voluntary prayer at public school extracurricular activi6 ties.’’.

Æ
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Please remove first copy of Request for exemption due to clerical errors.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

BOBBY LAYTHEN BINFORD

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

TERRY BENDA, et al.,

CASE NUMBER: C06-5364RBL

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants’ motion is GRANTED; 

(3) Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED; and

(4) Plaintiff’s complaint hereby is DISMISSED.

 July 30, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05364-RBL Document 33 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2015-4803 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2015-CE-034-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
### !3 

# RECEIVED SERVED: July 27,2012 

## ,AUG -7 2012 

## u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

# HEARING DOCKET OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF COLGAN AIR, INC. FAA DOCKETNO. CP09EAOO 18 (Civil Penalty Actions) FDMS NO. FAA-2009-0582

Response to Order ofChiefAdministrative LawJudge to Show Cause Why Default Should NotBe Entered ForFailure to Comply With Order
In response to the Show Cause Order, entered on or about July 1, 2012, Respondent Colgan Air, Inc. ("Respondent") responds as follows:
1. For several months following the Prehearing Conference inthis matter, Respondent and the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") were engaged in active settlement negotiations.
2. In the interim, Respondent filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. While said filing does not apply to enforcementproceedings by a regulatory agency in cases involving safety and regulatory laws, said filing did have the practical effect ofslowing downthe pace ofall such discussions.
3. Discussions withthe Complainanthave nowresumed andRespondent is hopeful ofhaving a resolution ofthis matter shortly.4. Respondent respectfully requests an additional thirty (30) days to either reach a settlement agreement orproducethe documents listed inthe Show Cause Order.

ark A. Dombroff, Esq. DombroffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 1676 International Drive- Penthouse McLean, VA 22102 Phone: (703) 336-8800 Fax: (703) 336-8750 Counsel for Colgan Air, Inc.SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2W100022 Sent viaU.S. First Class Mail ONE COPY W. Chris Harrison, PinnacleAirlines, Corp. Counsel In-House Counsel Pinnacle Airlines, Corp. 40 S. Main Street, 14th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 TEL: (901) 348-2483 Sent via Email & U.S. First Class Mail
Christian L. Lewerenz, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, EAL-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: (718) 553-3273 (718) 995-5699 Sent via Email & U.S. First Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 Sentvia Facsimile & U.S. First Class Mail FAA DocketNo. CP09EA0018 (Civil Penalty Action)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ABDELMONIEM ABDALLA,

Respondent

v.

EMADADDIN ALGARF,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 423 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of January, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 9079-006]

                    1. On September 18, 2023, Northeast Community Services, Inc. filed a notification of the transfer for the 65-kilowatt Upper Spears Stream Hydroelectric Project No. 9079 from R.J. Fortier Hydropower, Inc. to Northeast Community Services, Inc. The exemption from licensing was originally issued on September 30, 1985.[1]                                          The project is located on the Upper Spears Stream, Oxford County, Maine. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.                

                    2. Northeast Community Services, Inc. is now the exemptee of the Upper Spears Stream Hydroelectric Project No. 9079. All correspondence must be forwarded to Tyler A. Hicks, President, Northeast Community Services, Inc., Massachusetts Address: 257 Union Street, New Bedford, MA 02740, Maine address: 10 Murray Street, Bingham, ME 04920, Phone: (508) 851-9158, email:                     *northeastcommunityservices@gmail.com.*

Dated: October 11, 2023.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                                                     *Mark A. Vaughn,*                         32 FERC ¶ 62,716 (1985). Subsequently, on March 31, 2004, the project was transferred to R.J. Fortier Hydropower Inc.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2023-22888 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22506]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98692; File No. SR-PEARL-2023-35]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of 
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule To Modify 
Certain Connectivity Fees and Ports Fees

October 5, 2023.
    On August 8, 2023, MIAX PEARL LLC (``MIAX Pearl Options'' or 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a 
proposed rule change to amend certain connectivity and port fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with 
the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The 
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register 
on August 25, 2023.\4\ On September 29, 2023, pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\5\ the Commission: (1) temporarily suspended 
the proposed rule change; and (2) instituted proceedings under Section 
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determinewhether to approve or disapprove 
the proposed rule change.\7\ On October 2, 2023, the Exchange withdrew 
the proposed rule change (SR-PEARL-2023-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98180 (August 21, 
2023), 88 FR 58404.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98658, 88 FR 68770 
(October 4, 2023).
    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22506 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. G RA D Y EW I N G M A Y S, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N os . 12- 30224 12- 30349 D. C . No s . 1 : 0 3 - c r - 0 0 0 1 6 - J DS

1 : 1 2 - c r - 0 0 0 0 1 - RFC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont ana J a c k D . S hans tr om , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng R i c har d F . C e bul l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In these consol i dat ed appeal s, G ra dy E w i ng M ay s app ea l s f rom the di stri ct court ’ s j ud gm entre vo ki ng supervi se d rel ea se and the 12 0-m on th sent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rf a ilu r e to r e g is te ra s as e x o f f e n d e r , in 

# FI LED OC T 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 30224 & 12- 30349 2 vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 25 0. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. In A p p e a l N o . 1 2 - 3 0 2 2 4 , w e v a c a te th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. I n A p p e a l N o . 12- 30349, w e va c a t e M ay s ’ s s e nt e nc e and r e m and f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. T h e p artie s a g r e e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt la c k e dju r is d ic tio n to r e in s ta te M ay s’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se t erm i n 2 01 1. T he part i es further a gree thatthe court w as there fore w i tho utautho ri ty t o revok e M ay s’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se , and that M ay s w as no tun der acr i m i nal j ust i ce se nt ence w hen h e f ai l ed t o regi st eras a s ex offe nd er . W e a cc ordi ng l y vac at e the j ud gm entre vo ki ng M ay s’ s s up ervi se d re l ea se . W e a l so vaca t e the se nt ence i m po se d u po n M ay s’ s c on vi ct i on for f ai l ure to r e g is te ran dr e m an df o rr e s e n te n c in g . U p o n r e m an d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h a ll r e c a l c u l a t e th e Gu i d e l i n e s r an g e wi th o u ta s s e s s i n g Ma y s two p o i n t s u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 4 A 1. 1(d). In l i g h to f o u r d eci si o n , w e d ecl i n e t o reach M ays’ s o th er arg u m en t s. Ap p e a lNo . 1 2 - 3 0 2 2 4 V AC AT E D. A p p e alN o. 12- 30349 V A C A T E D an d R E M A N D E D f or r e s e n t e n c i n g.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22411]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-37-2023]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 218; Authorization of Production 
Activity; Derecktor Fort Pierce, LLC; (Refurbished Water Vessels and 
Hulls); Fort Pierce, Florida

    On June 6, 2023, Derecktor Fort Pierce, LLC submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within Subzone 218A, in Fort Pierce, Florida.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (88 FR 38483, June 13, 2023). On 
October 4, 2023, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision 
that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
section 400.14.

    Dated: October 4, 2023.
Camille R. Evans,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22411 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THE CHRISTENSEN FIRM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAMELEON DATA CORPORATION, and

DEREK S. DOHN,

Defendants.

Case No. CO6-337TSZ

CORRECTED TAXATION OF COSTS

Costs in the above-entitled action are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFF THE CHRISTENSEN

FIRM and on behalf of DEFENDANTS CHAMELEON DATA CORPORATION and DEREK S.

DOHN in the amount of $1,682.00. This order corrects the mathematical error contained in the Clerk’s

Taxation of Costs, Doc.223.

Dated this 9th day of APRIL, 2009 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court
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 SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDOM HAUG; and DANIEL SHREVE,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CR06-154C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation to Continue Trial and Pretrial

Motions Date (Dkt. No. 43). The Court having considered the papers filed by the parties, together with

the balance of the records and files herein, this Court now finds as follows:

The current trial date is July 18, 2006. This is a complex case and Defendant Daniel Shreve has

recently acquired new counsel. A denial of the requested extension would unreasonably deny this

Defendant reasonable time to consult with counsel within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

Further, both Defendants have filed speedy trial waivers through November 30, 2006, indicating their

agreement with a continuance. (Dkt. Nos. 44 (Shreve) and 45 (Haug).) The proposed continuance of

the trial does not appear to prejudice any party. The Court finds that failure to grant the requested

continuance likely would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court further finds that the interests of

Case 2:06-cr-00154-JCC Document 46 Filed 06/13/06 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 ORDER – 2

the public and the Defendants in a speedy trial in this case are outweighed by the ends of justice, within

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pre-trial motions cut-off date shall be extended

to August 21, 2006, with a new trial date of October 23, 2006. The time between the date of this Order

and the new trial date shall be excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§

3161(h)(8)(A) and 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2006.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00154-JCC Document 46 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 2