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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY HOWARD GAUTIER,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-0721 WBS GGH P

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Respondent’s response to

Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas corpus be filed on or before June 10, 2005.

Dated: 5/16/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_________________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

gaut0721.eot05

Case 2:04-cv-00721-GEB-GGH Document 23 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 1
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/2/2023 1

Invalid Primary Election 

Young v. West Point Municipal Election Commission 

(Michael P. Mills, N.D. Miss. 1:13-cv-99) 

Five voters, including an unsuccessful incumbent in a primary election, filed a federal complaint alleging that a municipal election 

commission conducted a sham primary election, because the municipal party executive committee was without members and therefore could not properly convey to the election commission the authority to conduct the election. The district judge determined that 

the plaintiffs had not made a showing sufficient to enjoin the next 

day’s runoff election. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Enjoining elections; 

primary election; party procedures; case assignment. 

On Friday, May 17, 2013, five voters filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of Mississippi claiming that the West Point Municipal Election 

Commission conducted a sham Democratic primary election for municipal 

offices on May 7.1 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

The court originally assigned the case to Judge Sharion Aycock, but on 

the day that the complaint was filed, the court reassigned the case to Judge 

Michael P. Mills, who set the matter for hearing on Monday, the day before a 

scheduled runoff primary election.3

At the hearing, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the Municipal Election Democratic Executive Committee had not properly conveyed to the 

election commission the authority to conduct the primary election, because 

the party committee no longer had members.4 One of the plaintiffs was an 

unsuccessful incumbent in the primary election.5

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Mills ruled that the plaintiffs had 

not made a showing sufficient to enjoin the next day’s election.6

 On August 

2, the parties stipulated dismissal of the action.7

1. Complaint, Young v. West Point Mun. Election Comm’n, No. 1:13-cv-99 (N.D. Miss. 

May 17, 2013), D.E. 1; Transcript at 25–26, id. (May 20, 2013, filed May 21, 2013), D.E. 12 

(testimony that the five plaintiffs were voters in five West Point wards). 

2. Motion, id. (May 17, 2013), D.E. 3. 

3. Notice, id. (May 17, 2013), D.E. 4; Docket Sheet, id. (May 17, 2013); Transcript, supra

note 1, at 43; Minutes, Young, No. 1:13-cv-99 (N.D. Miss. May 20, 2013), D.E. 7. 

4. Transcript, supra note 1, at 6–20. 

5. Id. at 21–30, 61–62. 

6. Id. at 62–64; Order, Young, No. 1:13-cv-99 (N.D. Miss. May 21, 2013), D.E. 11. 

7. Stipulation, Young, No. 1:13-cv-99 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 2, 2013), D.E. 29.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Francisco MATEO-MENDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 00-50721.

D.C. No. CR-98-02157-JSR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Mateo-Mendez was convicted for illegal reentry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and he was sentenced to 94 months in prison pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). In an earlier appeal, he challenged his conviction, which we affirmed, and his sentence, which we reversed and remanded. *United States v. Mateo-Mendez,*215 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2000). During resentencing, he was sen-*580fenced to 77 months in prison. He now appeals this sentence. The balance of the facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not restated herein except as necessary. We affirm.

The maximum penalty for illegal reentry is two years in prison, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), unless one of the enhancements in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) applies. One of these enhancements, which increases the maximum penalty for illegal reentry to twenty years if the defendant had been previously convicted of an aggravated felony at the time of his removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), applies in this case.

The sentence Mateo-Mendez challenges in this appeal is well within the twenty year maximum provided for in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Nonetheless, he argues that, because his prior conviction was neither charged in the indictment for illegal reentry nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury in this case, it violated the Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment to increase, on the basis of his prior conviction, the maximum sentence he could receive from two to twenty years.

The Supreme Court rejected this very argument in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 239-7, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although some doubt was cast upon the continued viability of *Almendarez-Torres*by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have held that *Almendarez-Torres*remains good law. *United States v.. Pacheco-Zepeda,*— F.3d —, 2000 WL 33156290, at *4-*5 (9th Cir.2001). Moreover, we have held that *Almendarez-Torres*is not limited to its facts, and have extended it to defendants who, like Mateo-Mendez, were convicted at trial for illegal reentry rather than pursuant to a guilty plea. *United States v. Parga-Rosas,*238 F.3d 1209, 1215 (9th Cir.2001); *United States v. Quintana-Torres,*235 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.2000). Finally, because we sit as a three-judge panel, we cannot entertain Mateo-Mendez’s call to overrule these precedents.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NO. 07-02-0028-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

APRIL 9, 2002

______________________________

STEVEN MORSE, APPELLANT

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY;

NO. 01-15,854; HONORABLE JERRY WINFREE, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Appellant Steven Morse filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on April 8, 2002, averring

that he no longer wishes to prosecute his appeal. The Motion to Dismiss is signed by both

appellant and his attorney. 

Without passing on the merits of the case, appellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal

is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Having dismissed
2

the appeal at appellant’s personal request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and

our mandate will issue forthwith. 

Phil Johnson

 Justice

Do not publish.
<ASX version="3.0">	<ENTRY>		<REF HREF="mms://multimedia.mcpa.virginia.edu/911/hearing3/2003070903_low.asf" />	</ENTRY></ASX>
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Order Granting Motion to Withdraw As Counsel of Record

Page 1

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 DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

CHARLES T. DAVIS, 

PLAINTIFF,

v.

C/O KISSINGER, ET AL, 

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:04-cv-0878 TLN-DAD (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

_____________________________________

Honorable Troy L. Nunley

Case Status: Closed 

The Court has reviewed the motion by Donald Aquinas Lancaster, Jr., Esq. to withdraw 

as counsel for Mr. Charles T. Davis in the above-captioned matter. (ECF No. 363.) The Court 

has reviewed the motion submitted and finds good cause and proof satisfactory to grant this 

motion. As such, the Court hereby grants Mr. Lancaster’s motion to withdraw as counsel in this 

matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 23, 2014

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 364 Filed 12/24/14 Page 1 of 1
S. 1617 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

An Act 

To designate the checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol located on United 

States Highway 77 North in Sarita, Texas, as the ‘‘Javier Vega, Jr. Border 

Patrol Checkpoint’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Javier Vega, Jr. Memorial Act 

of 2017’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) A native of La Feria, Texas, Border Patrol Agent Javier 

Vega, Jr., served his country first a member of the United 

States Marines Corps and then proudly as a border patrol 

agent in the canine division with his dog, Goldie. 

(2) Agent Vega was assigned to the Kingsville, Texas, 

Border Patrol Station as a canine handler and worked primarily 

at the Sarita Border Patrol Checkpoint. 

(3) On August 3, 2014, Agent Vega was on a fishing trip 

with his family near Raymondville, Texas, when 2 criminal 

aliens attempted to rob and attack them. 

(4) Agent Vega was shot and killed while attempting to 

subdue the assailants and protecting his family. 

(5) Agent Vega is survived by his wife, parents, 3 sons, 

brother, sister-in-law, niece, and dog, Goldie. 

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

The checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol located 

on United States Highway 77 North in Sarita, Texas, shall be 

known and designated as the ‘‘Javier Vega, Jr. Border Patrol Checkpoint’’. 

SEC. 4. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the checkpoint described 
S. 1617—2 

in section 3 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Javier 

Vega, Jr. Border Patrol Checkpoint’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-8 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-8 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-8 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-8 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-8 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-8 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 6 of 6
<ASX version="3.0">	<ENTRY>		<REF HREF="mms://multimedia.mcpa.virginia.edu/911/hearing3/2003070901_high.asf" />	</ENTRY></ASX>
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 83 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 83 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 83 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 83 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 83 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 83 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 6 of 6
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

------------------------------------------------------x 

 : 

 : ORDER 

IN RE SEPTEMBER 11 LITIGATION : 

 : 21 MC 97 (AKH) 

 : 21 MC 101 (AKH) 

 : 

------------------------------------------------------x 

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: 

The Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) and this Court, 

having concerns about the number of attorneys for whom clearance has been requested 

pursuant to my Memorandum and Order of May 16, 2006, both as to the inevitable delay 

in the start of depositions because of the time needed by TSA to complete necessary 

clearance procedures, and as to the advisability of conducting depositions without 

compromising national security because of such a large numbers of attorneys 

participating, it is hereby: 

ORDERED that all parties show cause before me, on June 8, 2006 at 4:00 

P.M., why the list of attorneys seeking to attend the depositions and receive clearance 

from TSA cannot be radically limited. The Court has these preliminary views: 

1. All wrongful death and personal injury, and all property 

damage and business loss plaintiffs, and the Port Authority appear to 

have a common interest regarding the subjects of testimony to be 

elicited in the forthcoming round of depositions. If that is true, a small 

delegation can be appointed by all attorneys to represent the whole. 

Later proceedings can focus on the scope of their reporting obligations 

to all others in the classes they represent.
10.01
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         JOSTENS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Name of Company                                   Jurisdiction of Incorporation

American Yearbook Company, Inc.                   Kansas
Jostens Canada, Ltd.                              Canada
Balfirm Canada, Inc.                              Canada
Jostens Can Investments B.V.                      Netherlands
Jostens International Holding B.V.                Netherlands
JC Trading, Inc.                                  Puerto Rico
Conceptos Jostens, S.A. de C.V.                   Mexico
Reconocimientos E Incentivos, S.A. de C.V.        Mexico
JostFer, S.A. de C.V.                             Mexico
No. 54634.

#### Samuel Barotz & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 121583-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shell strands similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Colonial Bead Co., Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 78, C. A. D. 401), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT
32
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Vitasti, Inc.  (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March  31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Tammy-Lynn McNabb, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:
 
 (1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  The
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Date:
 May 23, 2005
 By: /s/
TAMMY-LYNN MCNABB
 
 Name:
Tammy-Lynn McNabb
 Title:
  Chief Financial Officer
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/ Randall K. Fields                           Principal Executive Officer, CEO |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|  /s/ John R, Merrill                            Principal Financial Officer, CFO |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN LEE CHRISTMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0884 FCD PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

January 31, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for change of venue.

Plaintiff alleges that the court has failed to acknowledge plaintiff’s pleadings and

motions and has permitted defendants to abuse plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

He seeks an order transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Central

District of California.

Where venue initially is proper, a court may transfer a case from one federal

district court to another where the action could also have been brought for the convenience of the

parties and witnesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “Convenience” refers to the parties’ ease of access

to evidence and witnesses and the like. Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635 (9th

Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has not demonstrated he could have brought this action in the Central 

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 63 Filed 04/25/06 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

2

District of California, see 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), and he has not shown that the convenience of the

parties would be served thereby.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 31, 2006,

motion for change of venue is denied.

DATED: April 24, 2006.

\004

\chri0884.dny chng venue

Case 2:04-cv-00884-FCD-EFB Document 63 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 55894.

protest 148565-K.

#### Gillette Safety Razor Co. *v.*United States,

C. D. 1346. Motion of Government for rehearing denied by order of Chief Judge Oliver and Judge Cole.

Judge Mollison dissented.
#### Cedric Dion FUNDERBURK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7774.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

Cedric Dion Funderburk, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Cedric Funderburk appeals the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error, Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Funderburk v. Jackson,*No. CA-00-263-1 (M.D .N.C. Nov. 6, 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0291
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Strategic Internet
Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"). I, Abbas Salih, Chief Financial Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

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

|Date: | April 11, 2007 |  | /s/ Abbas Salih           
|----- | -------------- |  | --------------------------
|      |                |  | Abbas Salih, CFO, Director

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

<ARTICLE>          5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      16,313
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               85,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                (2,215)
<INVENTORY>                                 27,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           141,488
<PP&E>                                     309,388
<DEPRECIATION>                            (124,946)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             374,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       60,747
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 283,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               374,463
<SALES>                                     87,102
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            87,102
<CGS>                                       59,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               59,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,294
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,431
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,972
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .43







</TABLE>
No. 47809.

#### Protests 887136-G, etc., of Allied Stores Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>



                         NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES


                                INDEX TO EXHIBITS

The  following  documents of Navistar  Financial  Corporation  are  incorporated
herein by reference:

3.1    Restated  Certificate of Incorporation of Navistar Financial  Corporation
       (as amended and in effect on December 15, 1987).  Filed on Form 8-K dated
       December 17, 1987. Commission File No. 1-4146-l.

3.2    The By-Laws of Navistar  Financial  Corporation (as amended  February 29,
       1988). Filed on Form 10-K dated January 19, 1989. Commission File No.
       1-4146-1.