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

1

feder law office, p.a.

2930 e. camelback road, suite 160

phoenix, arizona 85016

(602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

fl@federlawpa.com

Bruce Feder - State Bar No. 004832

Attorney for Defendant, Scott Spear

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear. )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

)

NO. CR18-00422 PHX SPL

DEFENDANT SCOTT SPEAR’S

JOINDER IN [226] DEFENDANTS

LACEY’S AND LARKIN’S’

OPPOSITION TO UNITED STATES’

MOTION TO RESOLVE PRIVILEGE

ISSUES AND CROSS-MOTION TO

OBTAIN DISCOVERY AND ADDRESS

PRIVILEGE ISSUES [195]

The Defendant, Scott Spear, by and through his attorneys undersigned, and to the extent it

involves Defendant Spear, Mr. Spear joins in Defendant Lacey’s and Larkin’s Opposition to

United States’ Motion to Resolve Privilege Issues and Cross-Motion to Obtain Discovery and

Address Privilege Issues filed on July 20th, 2018 [DE 226].

Defendant Spear is in agreement with the arguments made in Defendants Lacey’s and

Larkin’s Opposition and those responses sufficiently state Defendant Spear’s position on the

issues.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th day of August, 2018.

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

/s/ Bruce Feder

Attorney for Defendant, Scott Spear

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 251 Filed 08/08/18 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 8th day of August, 2018, I electronically transmitted the

foregoing to the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice

of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp: Kevin.Rapp@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone: Andrew.Stone@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter: Margaret.Perlmeter@usdoj.gov

John Kucera: John.Kucera@usdoj.gov

Reginald Jones: Reginald.Jones@usdoj.gov

Peter S. Kozinets: Peter.Kozinets@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States

Paul Cambria: pcambira@lglaw.com

James Grant: jimgrant@dwt.com

Erin McCampbell: emccampbell@lglaw.com

Robert Corn-Rever: bobcornrevere@dwt.com

Ronald London: ronnielondon@dwt.com

Janey Henze Cook: janey@henzecookemurphy.com

John Littrell: jlittrell@bmkattorneys.com

Kenneth Miller: kmiller@bmkattorneys.com

Michael Piccarreta: mlp@pd-law.com

Stephen M. Weiss: sweiss@karpweiss.com

Michael Kimerer: mdk@kimerer.com

Tom Bienert: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Gary Lincenberg: gsl@birdmarella.com

Ariel Neuman: aneuman@birdmarella.com

KC Maxwell: kcm@kcmaxlaw.com

David Wakukawa: dsw@kcmaxlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defense

By: /s/ A. Jones

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 251 Filed 08/08/18 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 14.1

MITTAL STEEL CONSENT

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form F-4 (No. 333-121220) ("Form F-4 Registration Statement") and the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-107102) of Mittal Steel Company N.V.
(formerly Ispat International N.V.) of our report dated March 24, 2005,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Mittal Steel Company N.V. for
the year ended December 31, 2004.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the
Prospectus, which is part of the Form F-4 Registration Statement.

/s/ DELOITTE ACCOUNTANTS B.V.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
March 28, 2005
Exhibit 22

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1061-2 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1061-2 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 780 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 2, 2009. 

Whereas the earliest documented proof of Filipino presence 

in the continental United States was the date of October 

18, 1587, when the first ‘‘Luzones Indios’’ set foot in 

Morro Bay, California, on board the Manila-built galleon 

ship Nuestra Senora de Esperanza; 

Whereas the Filipino American National Historical Society 

recognizes the year of 1763 as the date of the first permanent Filipino settlement in the United States in St. 

Malo Parrish, Louisiana, which set in motion the focus 

on the story of our Nation’s past from a new perspective 

by concentrating on the economic, cultural, social, and 

other notable contributions that Filipino Americans have 

made in countless ways toward the development of the 

history of the United States; 

Whereas the Filipino American community is the second largest Asian American group in the United States with a 

population of approximately 3,100,000 people; 

Whereas Filipino American servicemen and servicewomen 

have a longstanding history serving within the Armed 

Services of the United States, from the Civil War to the 

present Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, including the 

250,000 Filipinos who fought under the United States 
2 

•HRES 780 EH 

flag during World War II to protect and defend this 

country; 

Whereas Filipino Americans are an integral part of the 

United States healthcare system as nurses, doctors, and 

other medical professionals; 

Whereas Filipino Americans have contributed greatly to the 

fine arts, music, dance, literature, education, business, 

literature, journalism, sports, fashion, politics, government, science, technology, and other fields in the United 

States which enrich the landscape of the country; 

Whereas efforts must continue to promote the study of Filipino American history and culture, as mandated in the 

mission statement of the Filipino American National Historical Society, because the roles of Filipino Americans 

and other people of color have been overlooked in the 

writing, teaching, and learning of United States history; 

Whereas it is imperative for Filipino American youth to have 

positive role models to instill in them the importance of 

education, complemented with the richness of their ethnicity and the value of their legacy; and 

Whereas Filipino American History Month is celebrated during the month of October: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the celebration of Filipino American 

History Month as a study of the advancement of Filipino 

Americans, as a time of reflection and remembrance, 

and as a time to renew efforts toward the research and 

examination of history and culture in order to provide an 

opportunity for all people in the United States to learn 
3 

•HRES 780 EH 

and appreciate more about Filipino Americans and their 

historic contributions to the Nation; and 

(2) urges the people of the United States to observe 

Filipino American History Month with appropriate programs and activities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Hanford GASKIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56942.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 5, 1990.

Henry B. Robertson, Lisa K. Clover, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christine A. Alsop, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*896ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would serve no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fernando Gastelum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CP Buttes LLC, 

Defendant. 

NO. CV-18-00940-PHX-GMS

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN A 

CIVIL CASE 

 Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The 

issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered. 

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court’s order filed June 

15, 2018, Plaintiff to take nothing, and the complaint and action are hereby dismissed. 

 Brian D. Karth

 District Court Executive/Clerk of Court

June 15, 2018 

s/ E. Aragon

 By Deputy Clerk

 

Case 2:18-cv-00940-GMS Document 29 Filed 06/15/18 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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Juakeen Koby Wycliffe, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-18-08044-PCT-DGC

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant was released on Pretrial Supervision on 3/30/2018. Pretrial Services filed

a Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release alleging that defendant violated the

terms of his release. Defendant was arrested and appears before the Court with counsel.

A Pretrial Release Revocation Hearing was held. Defendant admits Allegation 1 in

the Petition.

The Court finds that the defendant violated conditions of his release. Defendant

submits the issue of continued detention to the Court. The Court finds that defendant is

unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant's release is revoked and he is

detained pending further order of the Court.

DATED this 4th day of June , 2018.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
<PAGE>

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                          ---------------------------

                             Northwest Savings Bank

                             Jamestown Savings Bank

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF NORTHWEST SAVINGS BANK
                     --------------------------------------


Northwest Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation Great Northwest
Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation Northwest Consumer Discount Company,
Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation which operates under this name in five
locations in Western and Central Pennsylvania and also operates:
   d/b/a Northwest Finance Company in Jamestown, NY, a New York Corporation
   d/b/a Butler Consumer Discount Company in eight locations in Southwestern PA
   d/b/a Preis Consumer Discount Company in one location in Central PA
   d/b/a Uniontown Financial Services in Uniontown, PA
   d/b/a Erie Consumer Discount in two locations in Erie, PA
   d/b/a Franklin Consumer Discount in Franklin, PA
   d/b/a Corry Consumer Discount in Corry, PA
   d/b/a Community Consumer Discount in Warren, PA
   d/b/a Thrift Financial Services in Indiana, PA
   d/b/a Clearfield Consumer Discount in Clearfield, PA
   d/b/a Titusville Consumer Discount in Titusville, PA
   d/b/a Lewistown Consumer Discount in Lewistown, PA
   d/b/a Friendly Loan Consumer Discount in Jeannette, PA
   d/b/a Zelie Consumer Discount in Zelienople, PA
   d/b/a Johnstown Consumer Discount in Johnstown, PA
   d/b/a Washington Consumer Discount in Washington, PA
   d/b/a St. Mary's Consumer Discount in St. Marys, PA
   d/b/a Brookville Financial Services in Brookville, PA
   d/b/a Dubois Financial Services in Dubois, PA
   d/b/a Hazleton Financial Services in Hazleton, PA
   d/b/a State College Financial Services in State College, PA
   d/b/a Commodore Consumer in Erie, PA
   d/b/a Pottsville Financial Services in Pottsville, PA
Northwest Capital Group Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
Rid-Fed Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
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 pa ne l una ni 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 a r 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 KA T HE R I NE AV I L L A O WE N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. CO U N TY O F I M PERI A L a n dD O ES, 1 thr ough 30, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 55612 D. C. No . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 7 6 7 - L- NLS 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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M . J a m e s L or e nz , 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 r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K a the r i ne A vi l l aO w e n appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt di sm i ss i ng her a ct i on al l egi ng cl ai m s und erthe A m er i cans w i th D i sabi l i t i es A ct a nd s t a t e l a w i n c onne c t i on w i th he ra rr e s tbythe C ountyof I m pe r i a l . W e ha ve 

# FI LED OC T 12 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 55612 2 j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on a d is m is s a l f

o rf a ilu r e to p r o s e c u te , A s h v . Cv e tkov , 73 9 F . 2d 49 3, 49 5 (9th C i r. 1 9 8 4 ) , a n dw e a f

f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bydi s m i s s i ng the a c t i on, w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e , a f

te rw e ig h in g th e r e le v a n t f a c to r s . See i d. a t496 ( di s c us s i ng f a c to r s r e le v a n t to d is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to p r o s e c u te ) . W e d o n o t co n sid erO w en ’s co n ten ti o n s c o n ce rn in g th e d istrict co u rt’s o r d e r s d e n y in g h e rm o tio n f o rr e c u s a l a n da w ar d in g s a n c tio n s to d e f e n d a n ts . See i d. a t 4 9 7 - 9 8 ( in te r lo c u to ryo r d e r s a r e n o t ap p e a lab le a f te rd is m is s a l f

o rf a ilu r e to prosec ut e) . AF F I RME D.
H. Res. 890 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 18, 2009. 

Whereas the Republic of India achieved its independence 

from the British Empire on August 15, 1947, and has 

since maintained a democratic system of government; 

Whereas from April 16 to May 13, India conducted the 

world’s largest democratic election, which returned Prime 

Minister Singh to power; 

Whereas India’s relationship with the United States has 

deepened in past years and encompasses cooperation on 

matters relating to international security, world trade, 

technology, science, and health; 

Whereas the relationship between the United States and 

India has great potential to promote stability, democracy, 

prosperity, and peace throughout the world and enhance 

the ability of both countries to work together to provide 

global leadership in areas of mutual concern and interest; 

Whereas the Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Dr. 

Manmohan Singh, has helped shape India’s economic 

policies to permit the expansion of a market economy, 

which has led to greater economic prosperity for India 

and the growth of a middle class; 

Whereas Americans of Indian origin have made diverse and 

numerous contributions to the United States; and 
2 

•HRES 890 EH 

Whereas Prime Minister Singh has accepted an invitation by 

the United States to make an official visit to Washington, DC, and is the honoree of President Barack 

Obama’s first State Dinner: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) commends the maturating of the relationship 

between the United States and the Republic of India, exemplified by the current official visit of the Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Dr. Manmohan Singh; 

(2) looks forward to continuing progress in the relationship between the United States and India; and 

(3) welcomes Prime Minister Singh to the United 

States. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYS  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Toni Thomas 949/369-3700 7/23/2018

Bienert, Miller & Katzman

903 Calle Amanecer, #350 San Clemente CA 92673

2:18-cr-00422-SPL Bade 7/20/2018 7/20/2018

USA v. LACEY, et al Phoenix Az

✔

✔ 7/20/2018

✔

✔ ✔

tthomas@bmkattorneys.com

/s/ Thomas H. Bienert /s/

July 23, 2018

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 228 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.2




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 Advanced BioMedical Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"),
I, Kai GUI, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.




Dated
this 16th day of
March, 2009.




/s/ Kai
GUI


Kai GUI,
Director, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lewis A. STEVENS, Appellant. Lewis A. STEVENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Docket Nos. WD 48695, WD 50178.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 20, 1995.

Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Lewis A. Stevens appeals his convictions of forcible rape and incest and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. He asserts that the state failed to make a *prima facie*case and that the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper. He also contends that his post-conviction attorney abandoned him. We find no merit to his claims and affirm the convictions and denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. Because we discern no jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et. al.,

 Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-SPL

ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO UNITED STATES’ 

MOTION TO RESOLVE ATTORNEYCLIENT PRIVILEGE ISSUES 

The Court having reviewed and considered Defendant Brunst’s Motion for 

Extension of Time to Respond to United States’ Motion to Resolve Attorney-Client 

Privilege Issues, with no objection by the Government, and good cause showing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED extending the otherwise applicable time for filing 

all Defendants’ responses to the Government’s Motion to Resolve Privilege Issues 

(Doc. 195) for a period of two weeks and the responses will be due on or before July 

13, 2018. 

The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) from _______ to 

_______.

Dated: __________________

_____________________________

Honorable Steven Logan 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 203-1 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit F 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-6 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-6 Filed 06/14/18 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 195-6 Filed 06/14/18 Page 3 of 3
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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America

Plaintiff,

v.

Andrew Padilla, et al.,

Defendant.

CR 18-00422-PHX-SRB

O R D E R

Upon the motion of the Defendant Andrew Padilla to continue trial and to set this matter for

a status conference to fix a new trial date and to extend dates pertaining to scheduling currently

set in the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 131), after considering the position taken by counsel

for the United States in opposition to the motion and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Defendant’s motion (Doc. ) for the reasons

stated in the motion, including that defense counsel needs additional time to prepare the case for

trial.

This Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. This finding is based

on the Court's conclusion that the failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny

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

exercise of due diligence and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the trial date of January 15, 2020, and setting

trial at a date and time to be determined.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting this matter for a scheduling conference on

______________________, 2019 at , o’clock in Courtroom 506.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 628-1 Filed 06/03/19 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any subpoenas were previously issued and served

in this matter, that they remain in effect and are answerable at the new trial date and the party

who served the subpoena should advise the witnesses of the trial date.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(A) & (B) will commence on for a total of 

days.

DATED 

 

 Susan M. Brnovich

 United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 628-1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 2