alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/24/2023 1

Limiting Poll Watchers to Counties of Residence 

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Cortés 

(Gerald J. Pappert, E.D. Pa. 2:16-cv-5524) 

Two and one-half weeks before a presidential election, a federal lawsuit challenged a state statute that required poll watchers to serve 

only in their counties of residence. Five days before the election, the 

district judge denied the plaintiffs immediate relief because the requirement had a rational basis and because the last-minute filing was 

not justified. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Laches; intervention. 

A political party and eight voters filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 21, 2016, two and one-half weeks before the 

presidential election, challenging a requirement that poll watchers serve only 

in the county of their residence.1 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction.2

The court set the case for conference on the afternoon of October 24 before 

Judge Gerald J. Pappert.3

 Following the telephone conference, Judge Pappert 

set the case for hearing on October 28.4

 On the day of the hearing, “a coalition 

of Latino community-based organizations serving Philadelphia” moved to intervene as a defendant.5

Judge Pappert denied the plaintiffs immediate relief on November 3.6

“States have the power to regulate elections.”7 There was a rational basis for 

the requirement: “In short, Pennsylvania opted to design a county-by-county 

system of elections; in doing so, it ensured as much coherency in this patchwork system as possible.”8

Finding that the plaintiffs unreasonably delayed bringing the action, Judge 

Pappert observed, “There is good reason to avoid last-minute intervention in 

a state’s election process.”9

He accepted the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal on January 27, 2017.10

1. Complaint, Republican Party of Pa. v. Cortés, No. 2:16-cv-5524 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2016), 

D.E. 1. 

2. Motion, id. (Oct. 21, 2016), D.E. 2. 

3. Notice, id. (Oct. 24, 2016), D.E. 4. 

4. Order, id. (Oct. 28, 2016), D.E. 5. 

5. Intervention Motion, id. (Oct. 28, 2016), D.E. 14. 

6. Republican Party of Pa. v. Cortés, 218 F. Supp. 3d 396 (E.D. Pa. 2016). 

7. Id. at 401. 

8. Id. at 409. 

9. Id. at 404. 

10. Opinion, Republican Party of Pa., No. 2:16-cv-5524 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2017), D.E. 27, 

2017 WL 386603.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

CORRECTED JUDGMENT RENDERED 

AUGUST 21, 2014

NO. 03-11-00516-CR

Anthony Craig Mathis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered on July 15, 2011. The Court’s 

judgment dated December 18, 2013, is withdrawn. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ 

arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. The appellant 

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF B. GRANT HUNTER


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

      In connection with the Annual Report of Diversified Thermal Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, B. Grant Hunter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: March 31, 2003                              By: /s/ B. GRANT HUNTER
                                                      -------------------
                                                      B. Grant Hunter
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
1

0038298.wpd

PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A Professional Corporation

Jennifer E. Duggan, SBN 183833

Ryan C. Wood, SBN 232267

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

(916) 929-1481

(916) 927-3706 (facsimile)

Attorney For Defendants

COUNTYOFSACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTOCOUNTYSHERIFF’SDEPARTMENTSHERIFF

LOU BLANAS, SACRAMENTO MAIN JAIL COMMANDER MARK IWASA and JOHN

O’SHAUGHNESSY, CHIEF OF CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER HEINES,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; Sacramento

County Sheriff’s Department Sheriff LOU

BLANAS;Sacramento Main Jail Commander

MARK IWASA a nd JOH N

O’SHAUGHNESSY, Chief of Correctional

Health Services and DOES I through XL,

inclusive

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV.S-04-2016 WBS GGH 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Good Cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Dismissal With Prejudice is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-02016-WBS-GGH Document 11 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Willie Bailey, III,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2067 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

J. Wedell, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoJune 16, 2005, plaintiff submitted an amended complaint

naming defendants different from those named in his original

pleading. July 11, 2005, plaintiff submitted materials for

service of defendants named in his original pleading. The court

requires clarification regarding plaintiff’s intentions before

proceeding with service. 

Within 10 days, plaintiff shall notify the court if he

intends for this action to proceed on his amended complaint. If

plaintiff does not so notify the court, it will proceed with

Case 2:04-cv-02067-GEB-EFB Document 18 Filed 07/19/05 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

serving his original complaint and deem the June 16, 2005,

amended complaint withdrawn. 

So ordered.

Dated: July 19, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02067-GEB-EFB Document 18 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 60865.

#### Reliance International Mfg., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 251362-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parakeet playpens, composed in chief value of steel, the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Reliance International Mfg., Ltd.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 182, C. D. 1820), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ LEO F. WELLS, III                                   
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive Officer May 10, 2006  
|                                                        
|/s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                 
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer May 10, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7392

ALBERNIE STUDWELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN of the St. Brides Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-687-AM)

Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albernie Studwell, Appellant Pro Se. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Studwell v. Warden, No. CA-97-687-AM (E.D. Va. Sept.

3, 1997). We further deny Studwell's motion to subpoena medical

records and motion for extension of time to respond in district

court as moot. 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
No. 46747.

#### Protests 58858-K/12349, etc., of Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of refinery gases. Following *Standard Oil Co.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 237, C. D 471) the merchandise was held dutiable at 7% percent under paragraph 1555 and T. D. 49753.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earnestine THOMAS, a/k/a Tina Thomas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-30134.

D.C. No. CR 99-00167-JO.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 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 **

Earnestine Thomas appeals her seventy-two month and one day sentence imposed after her guilty-plea conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 UiS.C. § 2113(a) & (d), and unlawful possession of a firearm 'in connection with a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

*563Thomas contends the district court erred by failing to exercise its discretion to depart downward with respect to the sixty-month consecutive sentence imposed for violating section 924(e)(1). A district court’s discretionary decision not to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines is not reviewable upon appeal. *See United States v. Lipman,*133 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir.1998). A denial of downward departure, however, based upon the district court’s belief it lacked the authority to depart, is reviewed de novo. *See United States v. Tucker,*133 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.1998).

Thomas’ contention is without merit. The district court correctly determined it lacked the authority to depart downward from the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under section 924(e)(1). *See Melendez v. United States,*518 U.S. 120, 126-30, 116 S.Ct. 2057, 135 L.Ed.2d 427 (1996) (noting no jurisdiction in the absence of an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) motion); *United States v. Riewe,*165 F.3d 727, 728-29 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam). Moreover, there is no evidence the government intended to make a section 3553(e) motion. *See Melendez,*518 U.S. at 125-27.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,



As Adopted Pursuant To



Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



I,Fouad
Kallamni,Principal Executive and Accounting Officerof Premier Beverage
Group Corp. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:



| | • | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | • | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| | /s/ Fouad Kallamni                         
| | -------------------------------------------
| | Fouad Kallamni                             
| | President                                  
| | (Principal Executive and financial Officer)
| | October 15, 2013
Exhibit 32.1

                     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 Demco Industries, Inc.
(the "Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Hines, Chief Executive Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 907 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Dated: April 8, 2005

                               /s/ Paul Hines
                               -----------------------------------
                               Paul Hines, Chief Executive Officer
                               Demco Industries, Inc.



<PAGE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 11371 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:1 7

- cr
- 004 56

- JSM

- CPT

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus
SANTO MANUEL REYES DELGADO , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (April 16, 2020)
Before BRANCH, FAY and HULL , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-11371 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 1 of 22 Mark Ciaravella , appointed cou nsel for Santo Delgado , in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that co unsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
GRANTED , and Delgado’s conviction s and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 18-11371 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,017
<ALLOWANCES>                                       127
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,537
<PP&E>                                          48,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,430
<BONDS>                                         16,505<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           761
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,858<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,611
<SALES>                                         11,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,795
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (183)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,692)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)
<FN>
<F1>CURRENT PORTION LT DEBT
<F2>RETAINED EARNINGS  (721) AND
    TREASURY STOCK    7,323
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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

CAROL ROYE,

Plaintiff, CIV S-04-2192 DFL KJM PS

v.

FAIR ISAAC AND COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

A status conference was held before the undersigned on November 30, 2005. 

Plaintiff appeared in propria persona. Kiana Moradi appeared telephonically for defendant

Providian. Upon consideration of the status report on file in this action, discussion of plaintiff

and counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be

made within sixty days from the date of this order.

2. Discovery, including the hearing of discovery motions, shall be completed by

May 3, 2006. Discovery motions, if needed, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 37-251.

3. Dispositive motions, other than discovery motions, shall be noticed to be

heard by July 5, 2006.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02192-DFL -KJM Document 36 Filed 12/01/05 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

4. The pretrial conference is set for September 8, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. before the

Honorable David F. Levi. Pretrial statements shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule

16-281.

5. Trial of this matter is set for November 13, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. before the

Honorable David F. Levi. The parties shall file trial briefs in accordance with Local Rule 

16-285.

DATED: November 30, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

roye2.oas

Case 2:04-cv-02192-DFL -KJM Document 36 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of OpenTV Corp. for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned
officers of OpenTV Corp. certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his respective knowledge:



|(1) | the annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OpenTV Corp.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 11, 2008



/s/    NIGEL W.
BENNETTChief Executive Officer


Date: March 11, 2008



/s/    SHUM
MUKHERJEEChief 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

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNY HODGES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 04-2535 GEB KJM

vs.

COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel came on regularly for hearing July 26, 2006. Larry

Baumbach appeared telephonically for plaintiff. Monique Grandaw appeared for defendants. 

Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel,

and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The motion to compel against defendants City of Redding and County of

Shasta is denied.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 38 Filed 08/17/06 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

2. The motion to compel against defendants Bullington, Zufall and Zalesny is

granted in part. No later than ten days from the date of this order, each defendant shall respond

to interrogatory nos. 6 and 13, limited to the past five years and to claims of excessive force.

DATED: August 16, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

hodges.oah 

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 38 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2