alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ALEXANDER P. YANKO, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking either the dismissal of a criminal case or the granting of a new trial.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004).

Although petitioner provided a brief affidavit wherein he references a jury trial and the allegedly improper admission of evidence, he has not provided this court with any record or documentation in support of his claims and necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth



### rzz 

# zoo No. 84798 

# FILED JUN 4 2022

A. BROWhI

### Parraguirre 

# Pidad.wr ? C.J. in the petition"). We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted. Further, to the extent that petitioner has counsel, he must proceed by and through counsel of record. Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty 

# A-Vi s a,0 J. Stiglich

cc: Alexander P. Yanko Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0( I t147A V•;". 

### 2
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed December 15, 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00 122

- CR

____________ REGINALD TYRRELL PRICE , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1268303



### ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court failed to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant ’ s statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them o r object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22 ' 6 (Vernon 2005); Urias v. State , 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate the appeal and direct2

the t rial court to make the required findings and conclusions. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4;
Wicker v. State , 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The State filed a motion to abate, which is granted. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to wr iting its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant ’ s statement and have a supplemental
clerk ’ s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of this Court on or before January 5, 2012

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court ’ s active docket when the trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.
It is so ORDERED

.

PER CURIAM
No. 52029.

#### Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 997872-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of bowls similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 50327, and other items consist of vases the same as those involved in *170Abstracts 38573 and 38574. In view of the stipulation and following the decisions cited the claim at 70 percent under paragraph 212 was sustained.
NO. 12-15-00054-CV

IN THE 

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

_________________________

SABRE ENERGY CORPORATION, SONCO HOLDINGS, LLC,

VAN W. MOUNTS AND EDWIN WESLEY SANO

v.

WELL-PRO SERVICES, L.P.

_________________________

Joint Motion to Abate Appeal

 All parties, jointly, move the Court to abate this appeal, while the parties 

finalize a settlement.

1. The appeal has been perfected, but the appellate record is not yet 

complete.

2. Subsequent to a mediation ordered by this Court, the parties have agreed 

to resolve all their differences.

ACCEPTED

12-15-00054-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

5/11/2015 9:58:44 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 5/11/2015 9:58:44 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
3. The settlement is currently executory, and should be finalized within 60 

days. In the meanwhile, the appellants desire to preserve their appellate 

rights, but without incurring further appellate expenses in the interim.

4. Upon the settlement’s final execution, the parties intend to ask this 

Court for entry of further orders as contemplated in the settlement 

agreement.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the parties jointly ask the Court 

to abate this appeal for 60 days, or until such time as the parties’ settlement has been 

consummated. The parties further request all other relief that this motion may 

authorize.

This 11th day of May, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

RAMEY & FLOCK, P.C.

100 East Ferguson, Suite 500

Tyler, TX 75702

Telephone: (903) 597-3301

Facsimile: (903) 597-2413

/s/ Greg Smith

GREGORY D. SMITH

State Bar No. 18600600

gsmith@rameyflock.com

ANDREW S. STINSON

State Bar No. 24028013

andys@rameyflock.com

PAUL GILLIAM

State Bar No. 07938700

paulg@rameyflock.com

Joint Motion to Abate Appeal Page 2
Attorneys for Appellants

/s/ Kyle Kutch

KYLE KUTCH

Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 11770543

211 East Tyler Street, Suite 600-G

Longview, TX 75601

Telephone: (903) 236-8788

Facsimile: (903) 236-0015

kyle@kutchlaw.com

Attorney for Appellee

Joint Motion to Abate Appeal Page 3
# sec5_sbr_2024

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10September 2023
No. 63072.

#### Air Express International Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/14958 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
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

1

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant D.L. Runnels’

Ex Parte Request for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

ROBERT R. ANDERSON

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

JENNIFER A. NEILL

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

BARBARA A. MORRIS (SBN 137680)

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 322-3870

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendant Runnels

48149280-SA2005300167

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV S-04-2586 LKK GGH P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

D.L. RUNNELS’ EX PARTE

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE

PLEADING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT good cause having been shown, the defendant

shall have until June 30, 2005, to file his answer or other responsive pleading.

DATED: 6/7/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_______________________________

U.S. MAGUSTRATE JUDGE 

scot2586.eot05

BAM:js

scot2586.eot05.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 06/07/05 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

2

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant D.L. Runnels’

Ex Parte Request for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

# AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion, which will be held in Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on initiatives to expand access to banking services by underserved populations. 

# DATES:

Wednesday, March 28, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held in the FDIC Executive Dining Room on the seventh floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Agenda:*                     The agenda will be focused on affordable small dollar loan products. The agenda may be subject to change. Any changes to the agenda will be announced at the beginning of the meeting.                 

*Type of Meeting:*                     The meeting will be open to the public, limited only by the space available on a first-come, first-                          ( print page 11361)                        served basis. For security reasons, members of the public will be subject to security screening procedures and must present a valid photo identification to enter the building. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY) at least two days before the meeting to make necessary arrangements. Written statements may be filed with the committee before or after the meeting.                 

Dated: March 8, 2007. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E7-4526 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1547

MICHAEL THOMPSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv
- 01601

- LMB

- MSN )

Submitted : July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Brian Hardie, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Mi chael Thompson appeals the district court’s order dismissing as time

- barred his complaint alleging employment discrimination and retaliation

. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Thompson ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Thompson has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”)

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s judgment . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal cont entions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Thi s di sposi t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i cat i on and i s notpr ecedent * exceptas pr ovi ded by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

The panel unani m ousl y concl udes thi s case i s sui t abl e f ordeci si on ** w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. Se e Fe d. R . A pp . P. 34(a)(2). NOT F OR P UBLI CATI ON UN I TE D STATE S COU RT OF APPE ALS FOR THE NI NTH C I RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME RI CA , Pl ai nt i f

f - Appe l l ee , v. JOSE M I GU EL YEST E, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10337 D . C . N o . 4 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 2 8 8 - J MR ME MORA ND UM *

A pp ea l f rom the U nited S tates D istr ict C ou rt f orthe D i str i ctof

A r i zona John M . R ol l , C hi ef

Judge, Pr esi di ng Subm i t t ed Sept em ber13, 2010 ** B e fo re : S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , a n dN .R . S M IT H , C irc u it J u d g e s . J o s e M ig u e l Y e s te a p p e a ls fro m th e 1 2 0 -m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e dfo llo w in g h is gui l ty - pl ea convi ct i on f

orconspi r acy t o possess w i th i nt entt o di str i but e cocaine and po ss es sion w ith inten t t o d istr ibute c oc aine , i n v iolati on of 21 U .S.C . §§ 8 41 (a)( 1), ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i ) ( I I ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dwe a f f i rm. 

# FI LED OC T 13 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10337 2 Ye s t e c o n t e n d s th a tth e d i s tr i c te rr e db y e n h a n c i n g h i s o f f e n s e l e v e l b y two l evel s, underU . S. S. G § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , based on hi s co- conspi r at or s’ possessi on of f i r earm s. The di str i ctcourtdi d notcl ear l y errby f i ndi ng thathi s co- conspi r at or s’ p o s s e s s io n o f fire a rm s w a s re a s o n a b ly fo re s e e a b le to Y e s te . Se e Uni t ed States v. G a r c ia , 909 F.2d 13 46 , 134 9-50 (9th C ir . 199 0). Y est e al so cont ends thatthe di str i ctcourterr ed by f ai l i ng t o gr anthi s r equest f or sa f ety val ve r el i ef

. Th e d i str i ctco urtdi d n otcl ea r l y errby f i nd i ng tha tYest e h ad fa ile d to tru th fu lly d is c lo s e a ll o f th e in fo rm a tio n h e h a dc o n c e rn in g th e o ffe n s e . Se e 18 U .S.C . § 35 53 (f

)( 5); Uni t ed

States v. Mi l l er , 151 F.3d 95 7, 95 8 (9th C ir . 199 8); U ni t ed Stat es v. Shrestha , 8 6 F .3 d 9 3 5 , 9 3 8 -3 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). Fi na l l y, the di str i ctco urtdi d n otpl ai nl y errby no tawar di ng Yest e a n a dd i t i on al one- l evel dow nw ar d adj ust m entf oraccept ance of r esponsi bi l i ty , af t erthe governm ent de cl i ne d t o mov e f

or the ex tr a r educ t i on be ca us e i twoul d n ee d t o e xp en d p r os ec ut or i al re s o u rc e s a s Y e s te h a d re je c te d a p le a a g re e m e n t. Se e U .S.S.G . § 3E 1.1(b); Uni t ed Stat es v. Johnson , 581 F. 3d 994, 1002- 04 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “[ T] he al l ocat i on and expendi tur e of

pr osecut or i al r esour ces f orthe purposes of

def endi ng an appeal i s a ra tio n a l b a s is fo r d e c lin in g to m o v e fo r th e th ird re d u c tio n p o in t.” ). AF F I RMED .
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH M. CASSELLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs.

D. MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 54 Filed 04/18/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 4, 2006, request

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: April 18, 2006.

/mp/004

cass1798.31

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 54 Filed 04/18/06 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On July 28, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 25 Filed 09/13/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 28, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s June 6, 2005 amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a

claim. 

DATED: September 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/jenk2520.800

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 25 Filed 09/13/05 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 DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN W. LICK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

No. CIV-S-04-2514 MCE/DAD

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

plaintiff, the court has determined that this case is settled.

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160,

dispositional documents are to be filed on or before August 5,

2005. 

///

///

///

///

///

//

///

Case 2:04-cv-02514-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 07/21/05 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

2

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02514-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 07/21/05 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGEI PORTNOY, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1850 DFL DAD PS

vs.

US BANK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On April 18, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections

to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 18, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied;

Case 2:04-cv-01850-DFL-DAD Document 41 Filed 06/14/05 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

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted as to the

third cause of action with respect to defendants Robinson and Tehee only; 

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted as to the

first, second and eighth causes of action with respect to all defendants; and

5. Defendant U.S. Bank is directed to file an answer within twenty days. 

DATED: 6/10/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01850-DFL-DAD Document 41 Filed 06/14/05 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

SUZANNE A. LUBAN

Attorney at Law

State Bar No.: 120629

3758 Grand Ave. #4

Oakland, California 94610

Telephone 510/832-3555

Fax 510/832-3558

Attorney for Petitioner

MYKEL HAWKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYKEL HAWKINS ) No. Civ. 04-2495-MCE-GGH

)

Petitioner, )

) ORDER

vs. )

)

SCOTT KERNON, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________ )

For Good Cause Shown and pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases and the Stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. That the record herein shall be expanded to include: (1) The declaration of

trial counsel Alex Veylupek and the exhibits thereto; and (2) The declaration of

sentencing counsel Peter Brixie and the exhibits thereto, both of which have been

filed by petitioner as attachments to his Motion to Expand the Record;

2. The hearing currently set for June 23, 2005 on petitioner’s Motion to

Expand the Record shall be taken off calendar as moot; 

3. The petitioner is directed to file the Traverse by July 22, 2005. 

/ / / / 

/ / / /

Case 2:04-cv-02495-MCE -JFM Document 17 Filed 06/23/05 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

4. After the filing of the Traverse, the case shall be deemed submitted for

decision.

DATED: 6/22/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. Magistrate Judge

hawk2495.ord06

Case 2:04-cv-02495-MCE -JFM Document 17 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 65174.

protests 59/7922, etc. (New York).

#### S. Berger Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S.*H. *Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.