text:
ERNESTO BATALLA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and TEODORO BATALLER, Respondents.
In a Petition for Certiorari under Rules 65 in Relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, petitioner assails the Order1 of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) First Division dated April 3, 2008 dismissing his appeal from the February 12, 2008 Decision2 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Bacacay, Albay, in Election Case No. B-2007-2, and the Order3 of the Comelec En Banc dated August 5, 2008 denying his motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner Ernesto Batalla (Batalla), who was a former Punong Barangay, and private respondent Teodoro Bataller (Bataller), then incumbent Punong Barangay, were candidates for the position of Punong Barangay or Barangay Chairperson in Barangay Mapulang Daga, Bacacay, Albay during the October 29, 2007 barangay elections. During the count, Batalla garnered 113 votes while Bataller garnered 108 votes. Consequently, Batalla was proclaimed the Punong Barangay winner in Barangay Mapulang Daga, Bacacay, Albay.
On November 7, 2007, Bataller filed an election protest,4 docketed as Election Case No. B-2007-2, before the MCTC in Bacacay, Albay against Batalla and six members of the Board of Election Tellers in Precincts 107-A and 108-A for Barangay Mapulang Daga. Bataller claimed misappreciation of seven ballots. During the revision on December 7, 2007, Batalla did not protest any ballots.
1. Declaring that the protestant [Bataller] and the protestee [Batalla] have received equal number of votes for the position of Punong Barangay of Mapulang Daga, Bacacay, Albay, in the October 29, 2007 barangay election, and the winning candidate between the two shall be proclaimed as elected in accordance with Section 240, Article XIX of the Omnibus Election Code.
Section 2406 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, as amended, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, provides for the drawing of lots in case of a tie of two or more electoral candidates garnering the same or equal highest number of votes, with the proclamation as winner of the candidate favored by luck.
Of the seven ballots protested, the trial court appreciated five of them in favor of Bataller by applying the neighborhood and intent rules as enunciated in Ferrer v. Comelec7 and Velasco v. Commission on Elections,8 and the application of the doctrine of idem sonans. Consequently, the MCTC found both Batalla and Bataller garnering an equal number of 113 votes each.
Aggrieved, Batalla timely filed his Notice of Appeal9 of the trial court's decision elevating the election protest before the Comelec, docketed as EAC (BRGY.) No. 89-2008.
Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provide for the payment of appeal fee in the amount of [P3,000.00] within the period to file the notice of appeal, and Section 9 (a), Rule 22 of the same Rules which provides that failure to pay the correct appeal fee is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal, the Commission (First Division) RESOLVED as it here RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant case for Protestee-Appellant's [Batalla] failure to pay the appeal fee as prescribed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure within the five - (5)-day reglementary period.
Aggrieved further, Batalla elevated before the Comelec En Banc the above Order of the Comelec First Division by filing on April 11, 2008 his Motion for Reconsideration10 followed by a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration11 on April 30, 2008.
"Rule 19 - Motions for Reconsideration.
Section 3. Form and Contents of Motion for Reconsideration - The motion shall be verified x x x"
"Section 13. Finality of Decisions or Resolutions.
(c) Unless a motion is seasonably filed, a decision or resolution of a Division shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days in Special Actions and Special Cases and after fifteen (15) days in all other actions or proceedings following its promulgation."
ACCORDINGLY, the Clerk of the Commission, Electoral Contests Adjudication Department, is hereby directed to immediately issue an Entry of Judgment and the Chief, Judicial Records Division of the same department, to remand the records of the case to the lower court for its proper disposition.
Let copies of this Order and the Order of April 3, 2008 be furnished to Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Secretary, Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Chairman, Commission on Audit and the Secretary, Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Mapulang Daga, Bacacay, Albay, pursuant to Section 11 (b), Rule 18 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
Consequently, on August 11, 2008, the Comelec Electoral Contests Adjudication Department issued an Entry of Judgment12 in EAC No. 89-2008.
A. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ASSAILED RESOLUTION DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON TWO GROUNDS OF TECHNICALITIES: A) FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE APPEAL FEE ON TIME; AND B) FAILURE TO VERIFY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
The foregoing issues can be summarized into two: first, the procedural issue of whether Batalla's appeal ought to be given due course despite the procedural infirmities of belated payment of the appeal fee and the non-verification of his motion for reconsideration; and second, the corollary substantive issue if the appeal is given due course of whether the appeal is meritorious.
Respondent Comelec grievously erred and gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed and denied petitioner's appeal.
The records show that Batalla received the February 12, 2008 MCTC Decision on February 20, 2008. He timely filed his Notice of Appeal on February 22, 2008 with the MCTC and paid the PhP 1,000 appeal fee pursuant to A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.14 He admits paying to the Comelec the additional appeal docket fee of PhP 3,20015 only on March 5, 2008 or 11 days after he received a copy of the MCTC Decision on February 20, 2008, way beyond the five-day reglementary period to file the appeal under Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Batalla, however, postulates that the delay in the payment of the appeal fee in the Comelec was caused by his difficulty in getting to Manila from Barangay Mapulang Daga which is located in an island off the poblacion of Bacacay, Albay due to the massive floods that inundated the Bicol area in the months of February and March 2008, aside from the difficulty in getting a bus ride from Bacacay, Albay to Manila.
While Batalla concedes that his motion for reconsideration of the April 3, 2008 Order of the Comelec First Division was not verified, he submits that he cured the omission by attaching to the instant petition his Verification16 as compliance for his motion. He begs our indulgence in light of the Court's ruling in Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals,17 which reiterated the liberal application of the rules in the perfection of an appeal upon substantial justice and equity considerations.
Be it noted that while the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of public respondent Comelec filed its Comment18 on the instant petition, respondent Bataller, despite notice,19 failed to register his comment. Thereafter, Bataller was sent notice20 requiring him to show cause and to comply with the earlier notice to file his comment. To date, Bataller has neither filed his comment nor complied with the show-cause order. Thus, his opportunity to submit his comment is dispensed with.
The OSG argues that the instant petition is bereft of merit, since the Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Batalla's appeal. The Comelec cannot be faulted for issuing the assailed orders, applying the clear provisions of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, specifically Sec. 9(a) of Rule 22. Moreover, the OSG reasons out that Batalla's late payment of the additional appeal fee to the Comelec is fatal, since his appeal was never perfected. The mere filing of a notice of appeal is not enough, for the timely payment of the full appeal fee is an essential requirement for the perfection of an appeal, based on Rodillas v. Comelec.21 And finally, the OSG cites Loyola v. Commission on Election22 and other cases,23 which consistently emphasized that non-payment of filing fees in election cases is no longer excusable.
In the instant case, however, we find that Batalla already perfected his appeal by filing his Notice of Appeal and by paying the PhP 1,000 appeal fee, pursuant to A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, within the five-day reglementary period, to the MCTC; and by paying the additional appeal fee of PhP 3,200 to the Comelec Cash Division on March 5, 2008. Consequently, the Comelec First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Batalla's appeal and, likewise, so did the Comelec En Banc in not correcting this error by denying Batalla's motion for reconsideration.
The issue of the correct appeal fee to be paid for the perfection of an appeal from the decision of the trial court in electoral cases was clarified in very recent cases'' Aguilar v. Commission on Elections28 and Divinagracia v. Commission on Elections.29 In both cases, the Court clarified that the appellant in an electoral protest case decided by the trial court must file his notice of appeal and pay the PhP 1,000 appeal fee to the trial court that rendered the decision, and must pay to the Comelec Cash Division the required additional PhP 3,200 appeal fee.
In Aguilar, the earlier case decided on June 30, 2009, the Court ruled that the issuance of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC on April 24, 2007, which became effective on May 15, 2007, had superseded Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure (which provided for the payment of the additional PhP 3,200 appeal fee to the Comelec Cash Division within the same five-day reglementary period for filing the notice of appeal) in that the payment of the PhP 1,000 appeal fee to the trial court already perfected the appeal of appellant. The Court added that the nonpayment or the insufficient payment of said additional appeal fee to the Comelec Cash Division does not affect the perfection of the appeal or result in the outright or ipso facto dismissal of the appeal; and that the Comelec is merely given the discretion to dismiss the appeal or not, following Sec. 9 (a), Rule 22 of the Comelec Rules, or the Comelec may refuse to take action thereon until the appeal fees are paid pursuant to Sec. 18, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules. This ruling, however, has been abandoned in Divinagracia.
Considering that a year has elapsed after the issuance on July 15, 2008 of Comelec Resolution No. 8486, and to further affirm the discretion granted to the Comelec which it precisely articulated through the specific guidelines contained in said Resolution, the Court NOW DECLARES, for the guidance of the Bench and Bar, that for notice of appeal filed after the promulgation of this decision, errors in the matter of non-payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election cases are no longer excusable.
Comelec Resolution No. 8486,30 issued on July 15, 2008, clarified the procedural rules on the payment of appeal fees. In said resolution, the Comelec clarified that: (a) if the appellant had paid the PhP 1,000 appeal fee to the trial court within the five-day reglementary period pursuant to A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC and his appeal was given due course by the trial court, said appellant was required to pay the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 to the Commission's Cash Division within a period of fifteen (15) days from the time of the filing of the Notice of Appeal with the lower court, or else the appeal would be dismissible under Sec. 9 (a) of Rule 22; and (b) if the appellant had failed to pay the PhP 1,000 appeal fee to the trial court within the five (5) day period as required under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, but the case was nonetheless elevated to the Comelec, no appeal was perfected and it should be dismissed outright pursuant to Sec. 9 (a) of Rule 22.
Thus, in holding that Aguilar had not diluted the force of Comelec Resolution No. 8486, the Court in Divinagracia categorically ruled that for an appeal to be perfected in an election case from the trial court, the appellant must: (1) file his Notice of Appeal and pay the PhP 1,000 appeal fee within the five-day reglementary period to the trial court that rendered the assailed decision, pursuant to A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC; and (2) pay to the Comelec Cash Division the additional PhP 3,200 appeal fee within 15 days from the time of the filing of the Notice of Appeal with the lower court pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 8486. Thus, any error in the matter of nonpayment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election cases is no longer excusable and is a cause for the outright dismissal of the appeal.
Sec. 4. Where and When to Pay. - The fees prescribed in Sections 1, 2 and 3 hereof shall be paid to, and deposited with, the Cash Division of the Commission within a period to file the notice of appeal.
Sec. 3. Notice of Appeal. - Within five (5) days after promulgation of the decision of the court, the aggrieved party may file with said court a notice of appeal, and serve a copy thereof upon the attorney of record of the adverse party.
The promulgation of the decision is understood to mean the receipt by a party of a copy of the decision. Thus, to recapitulate, under Sec. 4, Rule 40 in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 22 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, an appellant from a decision of a trial court in an election protest case is given a reglementary period of five days from the receipt of a copy of the decision within which to pay the PhP 3,200 additional appeal fee to the Comelec Cash Division.
Considering that the Comelec En Banc issued on July 15, 2008 Comelec Resolution No. 8486, which allowed the payment of the additional appeal fee of PhP 3,200 to the Comelec Cash Division within 15 days from the filing of the notice of appeal, said Resolution, however, has effectively amended Sec. 4, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Thus, the Comelec is advised to reflect such amendment in their rules for the proper guidance of the Bench, the Bar, and litigants.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Batalla had already perfected his appeal by paying the required appeal fees. He paid the PhP 1,000 appeal fee to the trial court on February 22, 2008 within the five-day period from receipt of the decision and the additional PhP 3,200 appeal fee to the Comelec Cash Division on March 5, 2008 or within 15 days from the filing of his notice of appeal. It is, thus, clear that Batalla had perfected his appeal by complying with the appeal requirements.
It must be noted that the required payment of separate and distinct appeal fees to the trial court under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC and to the Comelec under its Rules of Procedure has caused much confusion to litigants. In fact, it became necessary for the Comelec to clarify the procedural rules on the payment of these appeal fees, and for this purpose issued Comelec Resolution No. 8486 on July 15, 2008.
While it seems that the Comelec First Division may not be faulted for following the then prevailing Comelec Rules of Procedure, still, it cannot close its eyes to the fact of the confusion in the payment of distinct appeal fees, which many litigantslike petitioner Batalla went through. It must be noted that Batalla complied in good faith with the required payment of the additional appeal fee as soon as he was able.
But what was worse was the Comelec En Banc's denial of Batalla's motion for reconsideration on mere procedural grounds, through the second assailed Order of August 5, 2008, after it had already issued clarificatory Resolution No. 8486 on July 15, 2008. Having issued said clarificatory resolution a scant 16 days before it issued the second assailed Order, the Comelec En Banc was duty-bound to recognize the timeliness and the compliance of Batalla's appeal. Procedural rules are applied retroactively when no vested rights are prejudiced. Such was the case with Batalla's appeal. He had paid the PhP 1,000 appeal fee to the MCTC within the five-day reglementary period under Sec. 4 of Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. And he paid the additional PhP 3,200 appeal fee to the Comelec Cash Division within the 15-day period granted under Resolution No. 8486. Clearly, he had complied with the procedural appeal requirements of the Comelec.
Fairness and prudence dictate that the Comelec En Banc should have recognized Batalla's compliance with clarificatory Resolution No. 8486 when it resolved his motion for reconsideration and should not have merely denied it on the procedural ground of non-verification. It is true that the verification requirement was not complied with, but such procedural lapse pales in the face of the manifest error in the dismissal of Batalla's appeal by the Comelec First Division when the Comelec En Banc had already issued Resolution No. 8486, granting an appellant in this case, Batalla 15 days within which to pay the additional fee of PhP 3,200, with which he had already complied.
Perforce, then, the assailed Orders must be reversed and set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the appeal of Batalla must be given due course.
In the interest of expeditious dispensation of justice, the Court will no longer remand Batalla's appeal to the Comelec and instead rule on the merits of the appeal in this petition. The core issue is whether the five protested ballots were correctly appreciated by the MCTC as votes for Bataller, resulting into a tie between the contenders.
(a) Ballot 1: Exhibit "A"31 shows, contrary to the finding of the MCTC, the contested name written on the line for Punong Barangay, but the surname is not discernable as it was written in a way susceptible to different interpretations, i.e., it can be read either as Batalla or Bataller. Batalla thus contends that this is a case of writing the first name of a candidate and the surname of the opposing candidate, in which case the ballot ought to be considered a stray ballot under Sec. 211(6)32 of the Omnibus Election Code.
(b) Ballot 2: Exhibit "B"33 shows that while the space for Punong Barangay is left blank, the first of the names for kagawad is unreadable and does not sufficiently identify Bataller, since the name written seems to be "tododer" and as such cannot be equated to Teodoro (Bataller), much less, credited to him pursuant to Sec. 211(14)34 of the Omnibus Election Code, for there is no way of determining the intention of the voter as held in Bautista v. Comelec.35 Moreover, Batalla maintains that "tododer" cannot also be appreciated under the doctrine of idem sonans in favor of his opponent, as the MCTC erroneously held, for Bataller did not indicate or apply for "tododer" to be recognized as one of the names for which he can be voted, and neither has it been shown that Bataller is known in the barangay as such.
(c) Ballot 3: Exhibit "C,"36 similar to Exhibit "B," should be deemed a stray ballot, for the real intention of the voter cannot be determined.
(d) Ballot 4: Exhibit "E"37 shows the name of Teodoro Bataller written on the space for the candidates for kagawad, with that for Punong Barangay left blank, and should be considered a stray vote pursuant to Sec. 211(8)38 of the Omnibus Election Code.
(e) Ballot 5: Exhibit "G"39 is not legible and does not sufficiently identify the candidate, and to consider it a vote for Bataller is highly speculative and conjectural.
After a scrutiny of the five (5) contested ballots subject of Batalla's instant position, we rule that three (3) ballots marked as Exhibits "A," "E," and "G" were properly appreciated and credited in favor of Bataller under the neighborhood rule and intent rule. On the other hand, the ballots marked as Exhibits "B" and "C" are stray ballots.
(1) The above Exhibit "A" ballot clearly shows the first name "Teodoro," while the surname written is a bit confusing; still, it certainly cannot be read as "Batalla" since the way it is written clearly indicates eight characters. The first six characters clearly make out "Batall," and the last two characters are the ones that are quite illegible. The name "Batalla" consists of only seven characters, while "Bataller" consists of eight characters. Thus, with the eight characters of the surname and the first name properly made out as "Teodoro," the benefit of the doubt tilts in favor of Bataller. More so, if the first name alone of a candidate (where no other candidate has a similar name) in this case, for example, Teodoro or Ernesto is sufficient to appreciate the vote for that candidate, with more reason should the first name of Teodoro and the surname making out "Bataller" be appreciated in his favor. Evidently, the voter wanted to cast his ballot in favor of Bataller as Punong Barangay. The intent rule is well settled in this jurisdiction that in the appreciation of the ballot, the objective should be to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter, if it could be determined with reasonable certainty. Hence, the intention of the voter to vote for Bataller is unequivocal from the face of the Exhibit "A" ballot. The ballot in question should be liberally appreciated to effectuate the voter's choice of Bataller.
(2) The ballot marked as Exhibit "E" above was properly credited in Bataller's name under the neighborhood rule as applied in Ferrer40 and, more recently, in Abad v. Co41 where the Court applied the same rule and credited to the candidates for Punong Barangay the votes written on the first line for kagawad with the spaces for Punong Barangay left vacant.
The neighborhood rule is a settled rule stating that where the name of a candidate is not written in the proper space in the ballot, but is preceded by the name of the office for which he is a candidate, the vote should be counted as valid for said candidate.42 Such rule is usually applied in consonance with the intent rule which stems from the principle that in the appreciation of the ballot, the object should be to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter, if it could be determined with reasonable certainty.
Section 211(19) is meant to avoid confusion in the minds of the election officials as to the candidates actually voted for and to stave off any scheming design to identify the vote of the elector, thus defeating the secrecy of the ballot which is a cardinal feature of our election laws. Section 211(19) also enforces Section 195 of the Omnibus Election Code which provides that in preparing the ballot, each voter must "fill his ballot by writing in the proper place for each office the name of the individual candidate for whom he desires to vote."
The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) first laid down the particulars of the above "neighborhood rule" in Nograles v. Dureza.44 Nograles and subsequent related rulings were later codified in its "Rules and Rulings on Appreciation of Ballots" (HRET Rules). We note that the HRET Rules45 provided for the "neighborhood rule" and the "intent rule," and that the Senate Electoral Tribunal's Rules on Appreciation of Ballots has adopted the HRET's "neighborhood rule."
Thus, the MCTC is correct in appreciating name of Teodoro Bataller in the Exhibit "E" ballot as a vote for Bataller although written on the space for Kagawad pursuant to the neighborhood and intent doctrines.
(3) The ballot marked as Exhibit "G" above was likewise properly credited in Bataller's name under the neighborhood rule and the intent rule, being similarly situated as the ballot marked as Exhibit "E." Moreover, contrary to Batalla's contention, the name of Bataller, written in this ballot on the first line for kawagad, is quite distinct and legible.
(4) The Exhibit "B" ballot above is a stray ballot and cannot be credited to Bataller. We agree with Batalla that neither the neighborhood rule nor the doctrine of idem sonans apply to this instance. First, the neighborhood rule applies when the name for Punong Barangay is left vacant, while the name of a candidate for Punong Barangay is clearly legible or discernable. This particular ballot does not clearly show the name of the candidate written on the first space for kagawad. Second, the word "tododer" written on the first line for kagawad does not necessarily refer to Teodoro Bataller. The word "tododer" does not sound like Teodoro under the idem sonans (having the same sound) rule. Said rule of law states that the occurrence in a document of a spelling of a material word that is wrong but has the sound of the word intended does not vitiate the instrument.46 Neither was it shown that Bataller is known by that name in Barangay Mapulang Daga in Bacacay, Albay. Third, while it is paramount to give full expression to the voter's will under the intent rule as indicated in the ballotsthus, the liberality in ballot appreciation it is necessary that the voter's intention be at least discernable with certainty. It has not been satisfactorily shown that "tododer" is used as a name of a person or the nickname of a candidate. Absent any indication of such discernable intent, we cannot appreciate this particular ballot in favor of Bataller. Thus, the MCTC erroneously credited this ballot to Bataller.
(5) Exhibit "C" ballot above is also a stray vote, for Bataller's name is not found on or near any of the lines corresponding to the offices of Punong Barangay and kagawads, and, thus, does not relate to any office. The name of Bataller was written in the upper portion of the ballot, above the instructions to the voter, but below the words "Bacacay, Albay," while the lines provided for the kagawads were properly filled up.
x x x Section 211(19), which treats misplaced votes as stray, speaks of a vote for a candidate "for an office for which he did not present himself." Thus, there is more reason to apply this rule here as the votes in Exhibits "9" and "13" do not even relate to any office.
This gives only two possible impressions. First, that the voters in these two ballots knew in fact where to write the candidates' names, in which case the votes for respondent written way off its proper place become stray votes. Second, the voters' manner of voting was a devise to identify the ballots, which renders the ballots invalid. We adopt the more liberal view that the misplaced votes in Exhibits "9" and "13" are stray votes under Section 211(19), thus, leaving the ballots valid.
Considering that the vote for Teodoro in Exhibit "C" ballot does not even relate to any office, then said misplaced vote is treated as stray.
Thus, to recapitulate, of the five protested ballots, three are properly credited in favor of Bataller while the other two ballots are declared stray votes for Punong Barangay. Consequently, Batalla having garnered a total of 113 votes prevailed by two votes over Bataller, who only garnered an adjusted total of 111 votes (less the two ballots with stray votes, i.e., ballots marked as Exhibits "B" and "C").
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Orders of the Comelec First Division and Comelec En Banc, dated April 3, 2008 and August 5, 2008, respectively, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The appeal of Ernesto Batalla is given DUE COURSE and the Decision of the MCTC in Bacacay, Albay dated February 12, 2008 is accordingly REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Ernesto Batalla is hereby DECLARED the WINNER for the position of Punong Barangay or Barangay Chairperson of Mapulang Daga, Municipality of Bacacay, Albay during the Barangay Elections held on October 29, 2007.
1 Rollo, p. 29. Per Presiding Commissioner Romeo A. Brawner and Commissioner Moslemen T. Macarambon, Sr.
2 Id. at 22-27, per Presiding Judge Marietta Lea B. Rosana.
3 Id. at 38 and 40, per Chairperson Jose A.R. Melo and Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento, Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Moslemen T. Macarambon, Sr., Leonardo L. Leonida and Lucenito N. Tagle.
4 Id. at 16-18, Petition dated October 31, 2007.
6 Sec. 240. Election resulting in tie. Whenever it shall appear from the canvass that two or more candidates have received an equal and highest number of votes, or in cases where to or more candidates are to be elected for the same position and two or more candidates received the same number of votes for the last place in the number to be elected, the board of canvassers, after recording this fact in its minutes, shall by resolution, upon five days notice to all the tied candidates, hold a special public meeting at which the board of canvassers shall proceed to the drawing of lots of the candidates who have tied and shall proclaim as elected the candidates who may be favored by luck, and the candidates so proclaimed shall have the right to assume office in the same manner as if he had been elected by plurality of vote. The board of canvassers shall forthwith make a certificate stating the name of the candidate who had been favored by luck and his proclamation on the basis thereof. Nothing in this section shall be construed as depriving a candidate of his right to contest the election.
7 G.R. No. 139489, April 10, 2000, 330 SCRA 229.
8 G.R. No. 166931, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 447.
9 Rollo, p. 28, dated February 22, 2008.
10 Id. at 30-33, dated April 11, 2008.
11 Id. at 34-37, dated April 30, 2008.
14 Rules of Procedure in Election Cases before the Courts involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials, dated May 15, 2007.
15 Rollo, p. 47, Official Receipt No. 0513533.
17 G.R. No. 142021, November 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 563.
18 Rollo, pp. 62-69, dated January 22, 2009.
19 Id. at 48, Resolution dated September 30, 2008.
20 Id. at 82, Resolution dated April 28, 2009.
21 G.R. No. 119055, July 10, 1995, 245 SCRA 702; citing Galang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76221, July 29, 1991, 199 SCRA 683.
22 G.R. No. 124137, March 25, 1997, 270 SCRA 404.
23 Soller v. Comelec, G.R. No. 139853, September 5, 2000, 339 SCRA 685, 693; Miranda v. Castillo; G.R. No. 126361, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 503; Gatchalian v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107979, June 19, 1995, 245 SCRA 208; Pahilan v. Tabalba, G.R. No. 110170, February 21, 1994, 230 SCRA 205.
A. Election cases appealed from Regional Trial Courts P1,000.00.
b. Election cases appealed from courts of limited jurisdiction '. P500.00.
25 Sec. 4. Where and When to Pay. - The fees prescribed in Sections 1, 2 and 3 hereof shall be paid to, and deposited with, the Cash Division of the Commission within a period to file the notice of appeal.
26 Comelec Rules of Procedure, Rule 22, Sec. 3.
(a) Failure of the appellant to pay the correct appeal fee.
28 G.R. No. 185140, June 30, 2009.
29 G.R. NOS. 186007 & 186016, July 27, 2009.
30 Entitled "In the Matter of Clarifying the Implementation of COMELEC Rules Re: Payment of Filing Fees for Appealed Cases Involving Barangay and Municipal Elective Positions From the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and Regional Trial Courts."
32 6. When two words are written on the ballot, one of which is the first name of the candidate and the other is the surname of his opponent, the vote shall not be counted for either.
34 14. Any vote containing initials only or which is illegible or which does not sufficiently identify the candidate for whom it is intended shall be considered as a stray vote but shall not invalidate the whole ballot.
35 G.R. No. 133840, November 3, 1998, 298 SCRA 480.
38 8. When a name of a candidate appears in a space of the ballot for an office for which he is a candidate and in another space for which he is not a candidate, it shall be counted in his favor for the office for which he is a candidate and the vote for the office for which he is not a candidate shall be considered as stray, except when it is used as a means to identify the voter, in which case, the whole ballot shall be void.
41 G.R. No. 167438, July 25, 2006, 496 SCRA 505.
42 See Farin v. Gonzales, No. L-36893, September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 237.
43 Supra note 8, at 455-459.
44 HRET Case No. 34, June 16, 1989, 1 HRET Reports 138.
iv. there were no intervening votes between the line for Representative and the line on which the claimant's name could be found, except when the vote was written on the line for Governor, in which case, this requisite is no longer necessary.
iv. the lines for Vice-President, Senators and Party-List are also blank.
iv. the lines for Senators and Party-List are also blank.
iii. the misplaced vote was not intended as an identifying mark.
3) the misplaced vote was not intended as an identifying mark.
c) the misplaced vote was not intended as an identifying mark.
d) in case of misplaced names followed by a name of a gubernatorial candidate or by names of a gubernatorial and a Vice-gubernatorial candidates, respectively, the lines for Governor and Vice-Governor are also blank.
46 Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1122 (1993).

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. V. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
This item has been shown 439 times.
Origination of Collection/Provenance: Over the past 3 years, we've meticulously assembled this collection through various long-time collectors and reputable sale houses. In addition, each autograph has been reviewed or authenticated by one or more autograph authentication expert including JSA, PSA/DNA, Universal Archives, RR sales. In addition to most having individual letters of authenticity, the entire collection will be accompanied by a JSA full letter of authenticity for the entire collection.
Particularly noteworthy items are: an extremely rare ink signature of Thomas Lynch, Jr.; a 1781 Continental Congress document signed by Arthur Middleton; a 1775 petition to join the Continental Army signed by George Taylor; a 1779 autograph receipt by Lyman Hall; a rare 1761 autograph letter by Francis Lewis; an early 1762 endorsement by John Hancock; and a 1786 land grant by Benjamin Franklin.
The collection rates in overall very good condition. A complete set of Declaration signers represents the pinnacle of American autograph collecting, and this superb offering very nearly accomplishes the feat. These collections rarely come up for sale or sale, with the last being offered in 2012 through RR sales. This is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity, a solid financial investment and how many people can say, I have a signed collection of the Declaration of Independence (figuratively speaking).
We are willing to break this collection up and have several of the key signatures/documents listed individually for sale. If you are interested in the collection, please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.
Bold ink signature, “Josiah Bartlett,” on an off-white 4 x .75 slip, marked “One of the Council” in another hand. In fine condition, with light foxing and staining.
Scarce ADS, signed “Wm: Whipple,” one page, 7.5 x 6, September 1785. Document recording court costs in the case of Abraham Libbey v. Ebenezer Sullivan, itemized with travel costs, attorney fees, and filing charges, amounting to a total of £11.1.8. In fine condition, with uniform toning. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Sought-after ADS, signed "Mathew Thornton Justice of Peace," one page, 7.5 x 6.5, March 29, 1759. Affidavit concerning the cost of caring for a sick man. In part: "Charges I paid for Man & horse, Doctoring, & Nursing while Sick…The above named Samuel Richardson After Due Caution Made Solemn Oath That the above Account by him signed is Just & True." Removably encapsulated in a mylar sleeve. In fine condition, with edges possibly trimmed.
Bold ink signature and inscription, “The Hon. John Taylor, Esqr., from his humble servant, the author, John Adams, April 9th, 1814,” on an off-white 4 x 2 slip, marked “Discourses on D” in another hand. In very good to fine condition, with trimmed edges, a block of toning to the top, and ink blots to edges. Accompanied by an engraved portrait. This was apparently clipped from the flyleaf of a presentation volume of Adams’s 1790 book Discourses on Davila, a work of political philosophy in defense of the US Constitution.
Ink signature, “Samuel Adams,” on an off-white 5 x 1.75 slip, with a partial manuscript passage on the reverse dated July 7, 1794. In very good condition, with heavy uniform toning, archival tape repairs on the reverse, show-through from writing to reverse, and chipping to edges; the signature remains crisp and bold.
Early autograph endorsement, “28th May—accepted John Hancock,” signed at the bottom of a pay order issued to his uncle Thomas Hancock by Thomas Williams, one page, 6.25 x 4.25, May 20, 1762. In part: "At Ten days sight please to pay Mr. James Nichols or Order the Sum of One Hundred and Eighty dollars it being Cash received for use of His Majesty's Works here." In fine condition. An attractive, early example of his classic signature.
DS, endorsed twice on the reverse, “Rob’t Paine his att’y,” three pages on two sheets, 9 x 12.5, February 24, 1794. Document in which the sheriff of Suffolk County is commanded to bring Stephen Fales of Boston before the court to respond to a complaint made by William Clapp. Endorsed twice on the reverse by Paine as Fales’s defense attorney. In good condition, with irregularly trimmed edges, repaired separations, and tears and toning to folds.
ALS signed “E. Gerry,” one page, 7.75 x 9.25, March 16, 1805. Letter to “Honble Mr. Bartlett,” in part: “I have rec’d the deed of your land…& wish that a paragraph may be inserted in the advertisement which I have sent to Messrs. Adams & Rhoades for Monday next…Two hundred dollars is a small sum, & till of late could be spared by me at almost any time…but I have been obliged to take money out of one of the Boston banks in consequence of several disappointments, which I have lately experienced: otherwise it should be instantly promised agreeably to your request. The great scarcity of this article, exceeds everything I have ever met with in this country.” In good to very good condition, with a strip of tape along the back of the left edge, overall dampstaining affecting appearance but not readability, scattered small areas of paper loss affecting a few words of text, and professional silking to the reverse to reinforce the otherwise fragile paper.
Ink signature as governor of Rhode Island, “Step. Hopkins, Gov’r,” on an off-white 3 x 1.25 slip. Affixed to a slightly larger card and in very good to fine condition.
ALS signed “Wm. Ellery, Coll.,” one page, 6.5 x 8.5, April 10, 1795. Letter to District Attorney Ray Greene, written as collector of the port of Newport, Rhode Island. In part: “A case has occurred about which I wish to consult you. A considerable property is in my custody which is liable to seizure and confiscation, and in case a libel should be necessary it will require a particular skill and attention to draw it properly. Some of this property the owners wish to be possessed of immediately to put on board their vessel, which is ready to sail…I desire therefore that as soon as you can be released from Court you would come immed’y to Newport.” In fine condition, with light scattered dampstaining affecting appearance but not readability. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Autograph endorsement, "I deliver'd the above Executions to Capt. Phillips in pursuance of the above request, S. Huntington," at the conclusion of a letter sent to him by John Leverett, one page, 6 x 7, January 2, 1786. Leverett's request, in full: "The bearer Capt: Phillips will be kind enough to take the execution in your hands against Dr. Crocker if you will please to inclose it to me." Affixed to a larger sheet. In fine condition, with trimmed edges.
Revolutionary War–dated manuscript DS, endorsed, “Roger Sherman,” one page, 8.25 x 9, issued at Philadelphia, April 5, 1777. A pay order submitted to Jonathan Trumbull, in part: “Please to pay to Roger Sherman Esq’r or order Seven hundred and fifty Dollars Continental currency.” Below, on October 16, 1777, Sherman confirms receipt of “Two Hundred & Twenty five Pounds in full.” In fine condition.
Interesting manuscript DS, signed “W. Williams” and “Wm. Williams, Judge Prob.,” one page, 7.25 x 12.75, April 10, 1806. Probate court document outlining distribution orders for the estate of Mr. Oliver Wattles of Lebanon. Williams makes several handwritten emendations to the body of the document, adding a five-line note at the conclusion. Signed both within the body and at the conclusion by Williams. In fine condition, with some chipping to edges and archival tape repairs to reverse. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Ink signature, “Oliv. Wolcott,” on an off-white 2.25 x .5 slip. Affixed to a larger card and encapsulated in a plastic PSA/DNA authentication holder. In fine condition.
Manuscript DS, one page both sides, 7.75 x 4.25, May 12, 1784. A pay order for Morris's services in the New York State Senate, signed on the front by Pierre Van Cortlandt, in part: "The State of New York, To Lewis Morris…To my attendance in Senate as a Member from the 24th day of January to the 12th day of May, 94 days and 2 Travelling days, 96 days, at 16/ £76.16." Morris endorses below an acknowledgment of the payment on the reverse, in part: "Rec'd May 12th 1784 from Gerard Bancker Esqr Treasurer Seventy six Pounds Sixteen shillings in full for this account." In fine condition. Pierre Van Cortlandt served as the first lieutenant governor of New York and was president of the New York State Constitutional Convention in 1777; on July 9, 1776, he was among 38 delegates to ratify the Declaration of Independence at White Plains. Morris served as a New York state senator from 1783 to 1790.
LS signed “Your most Hum: Serv’t., Phil. Livingston,” one page, 7.5 x 12.25, December 19, 1768. Letter to Richard Derby, in part: “I received your Letter dat’d the 15th Octob’r last by Mr. Broome and confess that I have too Long Neglected to Send you Acc’t Sales & admittance for your Citron left in my hands by Capt. Driver which has proceeded Entirely from want of Attention & by no means from any desire or design to make any Advantage to my self from the delay. I now send you the Sales Inclosed…proceeds being £68.10.0.” In fine condition, with show-through along the left edge from a mounting strip to the reverse, and a few small stains. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
ALS signed “Fra. Lewis,” one page, 7.5 x 9, October 19, 1761. Letter to a gentleman, in part: “I last night by Express received a Letter from Jos. Chew Esqr. of New London, as follows, ‘At last, I have got an order of Court for the Wines to be deliver’d to the Owners, which were Seized at Millford on the propertys being proved,—let me have all the Bills Lading &c. From the Gentlemen Concerned (Yours I have already) and I shall directly order their Wines for New York.’ In answer to this Letter, have desired him to send your wines down directly & draw on me for the Charges…Mr. Stephen Sayer…has a great desire to go a Voyage as a Super Cargo to the West Indies or elsewhere in order to gain Experience and promote himself in business.” Professionally silked on the reverse and in fine condition. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Manuscript DS signed “Wm. Floyd,” one page, 6.75 x 3, May 14, 1801. A payment receipt, in full: “Rec’d Albany, 14 May 1801 from Robert McClellan Treasurer of the State of New York, Sixty Three Dollars in full for the above warrant.” Prominently signed at the conclusion by Floyd. In fine condition. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
ADS signed “Abra: Clark Jun’r Clerk,” one page, 4 x 6, February 22, 1764. The docketing panel of a bill passed in the Provincial Assembly, identified as “An Act for Subjecting the Estate of the General Proprietors of the Eastern Division of this Colony, to the Indemnification of this Province, from any expences in running the Line between New Jersey and New York.” Clark writes: “House of Assembly, February 22, 1764, This Bill having been three times read in the House of Representatives, is passed.” The opposite side bears a section of the manuscript text of the act. In fine condition, with trimmed edges and a small tear to the top edge. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Engraved one shilling New Jersey note, printed by Isaac Collins of Burlington, 4.25 x 2.5, dated March 25, 1776, signed in black ink by John Hart, John Johnston, and John Stevens, Jr. In fine condition, with a central vertical fold and a mounting remnant to the reverse. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Ink signature, "F: Hopkinson,” on an off-white 3 x .5 slip affixed to a larger card bearing a note indicating that the signature was obtained by Boston sculptor P. Stephenson in 1858. In very good to fine condition.
ADS signed “Rich’d Stockton Att’y of the Trustees,” one page, 7.75 x 6, December 9, 1760. In part: “Rec’d Dec’r 9th 1760 of Mr. Sergeant Treasurer of the College of New Jersey the Sum of twenty seven pounds…in the whole amounting to two hundred and twelve pounds…to be applied to…the purchase of Land lately made by the Trustees of the College.” In very good to fine condition, with a central vertical split repaired with tape on the reverse, and ink erosion affecting the sum penned in the lower left. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Ornate vellum manuscript DS in Latin, signed “Joannes Witherspoon Pres.,” one page, 19 x 13, October 1792. A diploma from the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), signed at the conclusion by Witherspoon as the university’s president, and countersigned by seven trustees. Among the other signers are Continental Congressmen Elias Boudinot and John Beatty, and noted clergyman Ashbel Green. In very good to fine condition, with scattered soiling and a bit of flaking and fading to ink. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Philadelphia Bank check, 5.5 x 2, filled out and signed by Clymer, “Geo. Clymer,” made payable for $20, January 12, 1807. In fine condition, with light irregular toning to the front, and two pieces of reinforcing tape on the reverse.
Vellum manuscript DS, signed “B. Franklin,” one page, 16.75 x 13.5, June 20, 1786. As president of the Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Franklin issues a land grant to William Ball for “a Certain Tract of Land called ‘Middleton.’” Beautifully signed in the left margin by Benjamin Franklin, and countersigned by James Trimble for John Armstrong as junior secretary. The official paper seal affixed to the upper left remains partially intact. In very good to fine condition, with intersecting folds, a small clipped section to the lower left edge, and several points of the seal missing.
Partly-printed DS, endorsed on the reverse, “Rob’t Morris,” one page, 4 x 6.75, September 14, 1795. A promissory note signed on the front by John Nicholson, in part: “Three years after date I Promise to pay Rob’t Morris Esq. or order Ten thousand Dollars.” Boldly and prominently endorsed on the reverse by Morris, and countersigned by three others. In very good condition, with intersecting folds, overall wrinkling, and paper loss to one corner.
Engraved eighteen pence Pennsylvania note, printed by D. Hall and W. Sellers, 2.75 x 3.5, dated April 3, 1772, signed in black ink by John Morton, John Sellers, and Charles Humphreys. In good to very good condition, with heavy folds and creasing, a partial separation repaired with archival tape on the reverse, and general wear.
ALS signed “Benj’n Rush,” one page, 6.5 x 7.75, no date. Letter to a gentleman concerning his real estate dealings, in part: “I send you herewith the bonds and mortgage executed in due form also $124 84/100 for my proportion of the taxes of both houses last year, and for the other charges mentioned in your note all of which I believe are perfectly correct. I had supposed the contract for the last house purchased was on Monday the 13th of October, but upon further recollection I am satisfied it was on Saturday the 11th.” Professionally inlaid into a slightly larger sheet. In very good to fine condition, with dampstaining to edges affecting appearance but not readability. Accompanied by an engraved portrait.
Manuscript DS with an autograph endorsement signed “Geo: Ross,” one page, 7.5 x 12.5, February 1755. A legal document concerning a financial dispute between George Reazor and William Bowsman, endorsed at the conclusion by Ross: “I appear for the above Def’t & Confess Judg’t tp Wm. Bowsman the Pltiff for the sum of Fourty five pounds sixteen shillings & four pence Lawfull money…Geo: Ross Att’ny Def’t by Spec’l Warr’t.” In very good to fine condition, with splits to folds and minor paper loss professionally repaired on the reverse.
ADS signed “James Smith Attorney, Def’t by sp’l Wart.,” one page, 7.75 x 12.25, April 1754. A lengthy legal document in the case of Robert M. Whinery v. William Shriner, beginning: “William Shriner late of York County Yeoman otherwise called Wm. Srinot of the Township of Newbry in the Country of York…was summoned to answer Robert Whinery of a plea that he render to him ten pounds which to him they owe & unjustly detain.” In fine condition, with a few small tape repairs to reverse. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Revolutionary War–dated partial partly-printed DS, endorsed on the reverse, “Wilson,” one page, 3.75 x 6.5, July 1775. The docketing panel from an order issued to a sheriff, ordering two men to appear before the court. Endorsed on the reverse by Wilson to approve a summary of legal fees. In fine condition, with half of the front of the document absent.
Revolutionary War–dated manuscript DS, signed “Geo. Taylor,” one page, 8.25 x 11.75, December 21, 1775. Document headed, “To the Honorable the Committee of Safety of the Province of Pennsylvania—The Petition of Andrew Kachlein of Eason in the County of Northampton.” The petition, signed “Andrew Kachleine,” reads: “Showeth, That your Petitioner is desirous of entering into the Service in the Continental Army and prays to be appointed first Lieutenant in one of the Battalions now to be raised.” Below is a statement supporting the petition, “We the Subscribers recommend the Petitioner as a Sober Active Spirited man of good Character and considerable property and we think him fit to be a first Lieutenant in a Company,” endorsed below by George Taylor, Henry Looker, Christopher Wagner, and John Wetzel. Professionally inlaid into a slightly larger sheet. Reverse bears an ink stamp, “Autograph Collection of Dr. Max Thorek, Chicago.” In fine condition, with toning and light chipping to edges. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Early autograph ink endorsement signed “George Read,” one page, 6.5 x 7.75, December 3, 1752. Docket of a leaf which once contained a legal document concerning the case of Melchior Schultze & Adam Wink. The endorsement, penned by a 19-year-old Read, in full: “Please to Issue the above & You’ll Oblige, Your very Humble Serv’t, George Read Clk to Mr. Molland.” In very good to fine condition, with scattered light staining, and repairs to fold splitting and small areas of paper loss. A desirable pre-Revolutionary example.
ADS, signed "Caesar Rodney, Surv:g Trustee," one page, 10 x 1.5, May 11, 1771. Receipt for a mortgage payment, in part: "Recd of John Hardin the Sum of Thirteen pounds, Eleven shillings, and four pence." Professionally inlaid into a slightly larger sheet. In fine condition. Rodney famously rode his horse 80 miles non-stop to break the deadlock within the Delaware delegation to vote in favor of Independence on July 2, 1776.
Partly-printed vellum DS, signed “Tho. M:Kean,” one page, 20.5 x 11.75, October 25, 1806. As governor of Pennsylvania, McKean grants William Ogden "a certain tract of land, called 'Landsdown' situate in…Venango County…containing Six hundred Acres." Boldly signed in the upper left corner by Governor McKean. Also signed on the reverse by Timothy Matlack, the engrosser of the Declaration of Independence. The crisp white paper seal remains affixed to the upper left. In very good to fine condition, with moderate intersecting folds and areas of light staining.
Revolutionary War-era partial ALS signed “Ch. Carroll of Carrollton,” one page, 6.5 x 6.25, no date but circa 1781. Letter to Maryland Governor Thomas Sim Lee, in part: "Communicating all the intelligence you have received of the movements below, in particular whether de Barras squadron from Newport has joined the Count De Grasse—I have just heard that the French fleet went out of our bay in pursuit of an English fleet & was not returned…We desire to be respectfully remembered to you & Mrs. Lee." Carroll adds a brief postscript apologizing for the "scantness" of the missive. In very good to fine condition, with scattered light toning and foxing, and a tear/hole affecting a few words of text.
On August 25, 1781, a French fleet under the command of Comte de Barras left Newport, Rhode Island, and sailed south to deliver siege equipment to the forces of the Comte de Grasse anchored at Chesapeake Bay. When a British fleet led by Sir Thomas Graves arrived at the mouth of the Chesapeake on September 5th, de Grasse and a line of 24 ships sailed out to meet the encroaching British flotilla. Although the battle proved evenly matched, the strategic decisions of de Grasse enabled de Barras's fleet to arrive unmolested, and subsequently prevented the Royal Navy from supporting or evacuating the forces of Lieutenant General Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia.
Revolutionary War–dated ALS signed “Sam’l Chase,” one page both sides, 7.25 x 12.5, July 30, 1775. A boldly penned letter to a gentleman, in part: “Many judgments have been obtained, and many suits are now…in the Courts of Common Law in this Province, against Persons, who by the late Lines are become inhabitants of your Province. Public Dues…are still due from many of them. Justice requires that they should be answerable to the one and liable to pay the other. I submit to your Consideration, whether it would not be proper to pass a Law to enable our Courts that are already possessed of Judgments or Actions against any of the late Inhabitants of this province to retain them and for our own Sheriffs to execute all process till satisfaction made and to collect all public Dues.” In very good to fine condition, with partial splits to intersecting folds. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Exceptional twice-signed ADS, signed at the conclusion, “T. Stone Def’t,” and endorsed on the reverse, “T. Stone,” one page, 7.25 x 5.25, no date. Legal document penned by Stone in a dispute between “Marmaduke Sims” and “Ignatius Adams and Wife,” in part: “And the said Marmaduke in as much as he hath above alledged in his said plea sufficient matter in Law to preclude the said Ignatius and Eleanor from having their said action against him the said Marmaduke.” Endorsed on the reverse by Stone, “Mr. Fendall—File this joinder…T. Stone.” Professionally inlaid into a slightly larger sheet and in fine condition, with a thin archival tape repair on the reverse. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Manuscript DS, signed “Wm. Paca,” one page, 19.5 x 13, October 27, 1783. As governor of Maryland, Paca grants Jacob Parker the "Tract or Parcel of Land called Forest Grove" in Worcester County. Prominently signed in the left margin by Governor William Paca and countersigned by Chancellor John Rogers. In very good to fine condition, with light staining and toning, paper loss at fold intersections, and the seal detached but present; Paca's signature is in the clear, and unaffected by any flaws. In his 1995 reference History Comes to Life, Kenneth Rendell places Paca's autograph material into the 'rare' category among the Signers.
Partial ADS signed “Richard Henry Lee,” one page both sides, 8.5 x 2.75, no date. The concluding portion of a document pertaining to a parcel of land, signed at the conclusion by Richard Henry Lee and countersigned by three witnesses. In good condition, with repaired tears passing through Lee’s signature, light dampstaining, and chipping to edges. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
ALS, one page, 6 x 7.25, December 27, 1770. Letter to George Turberville, mainly concerning the monetary and business matters of his brother, William Lee. In part: “I have just recd. a Letter from Mr. W. Lee in which he informs me that fearing he should be pressed for money, he had presented your bill to Mr. Russell who refused payment & it was noted for non-payment. Mr. Lee says he will take care that you sustain no kind of inconvenience from it. Mr. Lee’s ship may be expected early in next month, & I hope my Dear Sir, you will give her all the Assistance in your power; as a relation & acquaintance he claims the preference, & I don’t doubt but you will allways find in him an honest Friend. Sometime agoe I wrote to you, begging the fav’r of you to take care of the few things I had at Sandy Point, to wit, 3 Mattrasses, 3 Counterpanes, 2 p’r of blankets, & a Cask, or chest containing bottled spirit. I have never heard whether you rec’d the Let’r. I fear they will not be taken care of there.” The integral address leaf has been professionally inlaid into a larger sheet. In fine condition.
ALS, one page, 7.75 x 3.25, October 16, 1788. Letter to Mr. T. Metcalf, in full: “It is not in my power at this time to pay the Bond or any part of it in Money or Goods—But it will probably be in the course of a Month—as soon as it is I will inform you & will pay it.” In very good condition, with heavy intersecting folds, creasing, small tape repairs on the reverse, and mild staining. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Revolutionary War–dated partly-printed DS, signed three times by Benjamin Harrison, “Benj. Harrison,” and once by George Wythe, “G. Wythe,” one page both sides, 8.25 x 13, April 8, 1783. As governor of Virginia, Harrison appoints Samuel Hanway as “Surveyor of the County of Monongalia,” with an intriguing note: “This commission is to be nul & void provided the present Surveyor, who is supposed to be killed by the Indians, shall be alive.” The reverse bears the endorsements of the professors of the College of William & Mary, including fellow Declaration signer George Wythe and Bishop James Madison, the college’s president and cousin of the future American president of the same name. In very good condition, with intersecting folds, scattered staining, and a bit of paper loss to edges. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Manuscript DS, signed “Thos. Nelson, Jr.,” one page, 7.5 x 9.25, June 28, 1786. A financial document, in part: “Know all Men, by these Presents, that Mr. Thomas Nelson, Jr,. the County of York, & Nath. Burwell…are held and firmly bound…in the just and full sum of Three hundred Sixty Six Pounds fourteen shillings sterling money.” In fine condition, with tiny splits at edges of the folds. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Revolutionary War–dated partly-printed DS, endorsed on the reverse, “W. Hooper,” one page, 8.25 x 6.5, September 25, 1779. Legal document commanding the sheriff of Rowan County to “take the Body of Benjamin Miller…and him safely keep so that you have him before the Judge of the Superior Court of Law, at Salisbury…to render and satisfy the Office the Sum of three pounds nineteen shillings…adjudged for Costs of his Suit.” Endorsed on the reverse by Hooper. In very good to fine condition, with small splits to edges and light dampstaining. Accompanied by a manuscript bill accounting for the fees related to the lawsuit.
Ink endorsement signature, "J. P. atto," on the reverse of a manuscript legal document, one page, 7.5 x 4.5, February 6, 1786. Writ order addressed to the Sheriff of Granville County to "take the bodies of John John Potter & Riehard Wilkins" and to render unto Thomas Greenwood the sum of £32.6.0. In fine condition, with light toning along folds.
Revolutionary War–dated manuscript DS, one page, 8.25 x 8.75, April 10, 1778. Legal document concerning a bail payment, in part: “Know all men by these presents that We John Williamson and Joseph Hews Esqr…stand firmly Bound unto Evan Skinner high Sheriff…in the full and just sum of Two thousand pounds…The Condition of the above obligation is in such that if the above…John Williamson…make his personal aperance Before the Justices of our Superior Cort.” Boldly signed at the conclusion by both parties. In fine condition. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA.
Ink signature, “Edward Rutledge,” on an off-white 15.75 x 1.75 slip clipped from an oversized indenture, with a large seal removed from between his first and last names; the slip has been folded to bring the halves of the signature closer together. In very good condition, with toning, small pieces of tape along the bottom, and aforementioned vertical folds.
Revolutionary War–dated manuscript DS, signed “A. Middleton,” one page, 7.75 x 6.25, December 29, 1781. Pay order issued to John Ross in Philadelphia, in full: “Four months after date, please to pay to Alex’r Moultrie Esqr., or Order, Two hundred Spanish milled Dollars, and charge the same to the state of South Carolina.” Signed at the conclusion by four of South Carolina’s delegates to the Continental Congress: Arthur Middleton, Thomas Bee, Isaac Motte, and Nicholas Eveleigh. Endorsed on the reverse by Moultrie, indicating receipt of the funds. In fine condition. Accompanied by a full letter of authenticity from JSA. A superior war-dated exemplar signed by South Carolina’s delegates to the Continental Congress, highlighted by the scarce and highly sought-after Middleton.
Excessively rare ink signature, "then no lo, Tho. Lynch,” on an off-white 1.75 x .75 slip clipped from a longer autograph letter, affixed at one edge to a slightly larger slip. In fine condition, with a central vertical fold. Accompanied by a photocopy of a certificate of authenticity from Charles Hamilton, dated September 18, 1995, stating: "I certify that the signature 'Tho. Lynch'…is an authentic, original signature of the famous signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Lynch, Jr." Also includes a full letter of authenticity from University Archives. Provenance: Remember When sales, March 15, 1997.
With the rise of autograph collecting in nineteenth-century America, one of the first areas of specialization was Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Apart from the Signers' central role in American history and the unusual significance of their autographs—after all, writing their names is what ensured their immortality—obtaining all 56 represented a goal that, with a little determination, could be achieved by a resourceful collector. It quickly became evident, however, that there were two notorious ‘stoppers’ among the Signers: Button Gwinnett and Thomas Lynch, Jr. It is not entirely clear which is rarer—while Gwinnett was generally thought to be the rarest of all signers, recent studies have proclaimed Lynch as the scarcer of the two. This is an unusually bold, well-preserved example of Lynch's signature.
Large ink signature, “Tho’s Heyward, Jr.,” on an off-white 3.5 x 1.75 slip. Affixed to a slightly larger card and in fine condition.
Rare Revolutionary War–dated ADS, one page, 7.5 x 2.5, May 4, 1779. Receipt of payment, in part: "1779, Rec'd 4th May of Dr. James Dunsany the sum of Thirteen Hundred & two pounds five shillings…Carolina Currency, which he Rec'd of Mr. Joshua Lockwood for me—Rec'd pr Lyman Hall." In very good to fine condition, with a few repaired edge tears. Hall remains among the rarest of all Declaration signers.
Manuscript DS, signed “Geo. Walton,” one page, 12.25 x 7.75, January 9, 1786. Official document issued in the County of Chatham, Georgia, in part: "To all and singular the Sheriffs within the said State greeting, You are hereby commanded that of the Goods and Chattels, Lands Tenements of Francis Paris…you cause to be made as well thirty-four Pounds one Shilling and six Pence Sterling which in the superior Court of the said County…was adjudged to Isaac La Roche of the said County of Chatham for his Damages." Boldly signed in the upper left by Walton as Chief Justice of Georgia. The white paper seal affixed to the upper left remains fully intact. In very good to fine condition, with light staining to the top, two old tape stains, and archival reinforcements to fold splits on the reverse.
In addition to the items signed by these 55 signers is one signed by Timothy Matlack, the political leader from Pennsylvania best known for engrossing the Declaration of Independence on parchment: Revolutionary War-dated manuscript DS, signed "Attest T. Matlack Sec'y," four pages on two adjoining sheets, 8.25 x 13, September 3, 1778. Lengthy indenture concerning "a certain Plantation or Tract of Land Situate on Stephen's Run a branch of Crooked Run in the said County of Frederick." Signed at the conclusion below the affixed white paper seal by Matlack as secretary of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania. Intersecting folds with repaired partial separations and light soiling, otherwise fine condition. Accompanied by a complete typed transcript of the lengthy document.

matches:
In fine
v.
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
in fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
v.
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
in fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
In fine
in fine


Jeffrey Terrell Thomas, an African-American, appeals the 120-month sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) and 846. We affirm.
We reject Thomas's argument that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) is ambiguous and irrational, and has a discriminatory impact on African-Americans. See United States v. Jackson, 67 F.3d 1359, 1367 (8th Cir. 1995). Thomas urges us to reconsider our decisions in United States v. Clary, 34 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1172 (1995), and United States v. Buckner, 894 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1990), but only the court en banc can overturn the decision of another panel of the court, United States v. Polanco, 53 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 1995), pet. for cert. filed, No. 95-5022 (U.S. June 29, 1995). We have consistently rejected the claim that any disparate impact occasioned by the distinction between the penalties for crack and powder cocaine violates the Equal Protection Clause, see, e.g., United States v. Delaney, 52 F.3d 182, 189 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 209 (1995); and we recently refused to reconsider Clary, United States v. Thompson, 51 F.3d 122, 127 (8th Cir. 1995).
We also conclude Thomas's Eighth Amendment argument--that the "vastly disproportionate penalty" for crack "offends constitutional principles of proportionality"--is foreclosed by our decisions in Thompson, 51 F.3d at 127; United States v. Wesley, 990 F.2d 360, 367 (8th Cir. 1993); and United States v. Winfrey, 900 F.2d 1225, 1227 (8th Cir. 1990).


text:
Akron, OH - His Grace Bishop Mitrophan of Eastern America scheduled the Annual Cleveland Deanery Meeting on Christian Education to be held at St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church in Akron, Ohio on Saturday, June 5, 2010.
V. Rev. Dragomir Tuba was the host priest. The guest speaker was V. Rev. Mijoljub Matic of St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Church in Cleveland. He spoke in detail about how to excite our children about Christian Education and the crucial role played by parents. His talk gave way to a lively discussion afterward.
The meeting was attended by the Dean of the Cleveland Deanery, V. Rev. Stavrophor Janko Raljich and V. Rev. Rodney Torbic, the Christian Education Coordinator for the Eastern American Diocese. Also in attendance were Archimandrite Leontije (Alavanja), V. Rev. Stavrophor Rastko Trbuhovich, V. Rev. Djordje Mileusnic, V. Rev. Zivojin Jakovljevic, Protonamesnik Milovan Katanic, Reverend Father Isak Kisin, Reverend Father Dragan Goronjic, Protinica Vickie Trbuhovich and Church School teachers Steven Munich and Mile Andjelkovich.
Parish Christian Education reports were given orally and submitted in writing. The Deanery Meetings have been conducted on an annual basis since 1987 and provide for the exchange of vital information on Christian education among parish priests and church school teachers as well as the opportunity to hear a featured speaker on a relevant theme.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


Immigrants and Non-immigrants might be subject to the following set(s) of Immigration rules: Inadmissibility Under INA §212, Deportability Under INA §237, and Good Moral Character Under INA §101(f).
· LPRs returning from a trip abroad may be considered to be seeking admission under INA §101(a)(13)(C), including those who have committed criminal offenses that would make them inadmissible under INA §212(a)(2).
Under INA §101(a)(13)(C), LPRs are not considered to be seeking an admission into the U.S. unless the alien (i) Has abandoned or relinquished that status; (ii) Has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days; (iii) Has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the U.S.; (iv) Has departed form the U.S. while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the U.S.; (v) Has committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2), unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under 212(h) or 240(A)(a); and (vi) Is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the U.S. after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
Foreign individuals, who were admitted in any status, even if that status has expired, are subject to the grounds of deportability listed in INA §237. Lawful Permanent Residents, other than those returning from a trip abroad and subject to classification as arriving Foreign individuals under INA §101(a)(13)(C), are considered to have been admitted as of the day they adjust status.
It is important to recognize more than one set of immigration rules may apply to foreign nationals and any issues should be analyzed under each set of applicable rules. For example, all applicants for adjustment who entered with admission are subject to both INA §212 and INA §237.


Introductory studio in fundamental two-dimensional concepts of graphic design. Basic design principles and invention of form within contexts relevant to design of communication of information, concepts and/or emotions. Project assignments will coincide with lectures and tutorials, and will enable students to develop critical thinking and visual problem solving skills. Prerequisites: AGD 1000, 2010, 2030, 3010, ARH 2530, ART 1010, 1020, and 2030, or permission of the instructor.
Typography as a medium of visual communication. Student exercises focus on type as image and the relationship between visual and verbal language, the expressive characteristics of letterforms and type design classifications. Course covers type terminology, typographic design and production history, and current methods/tutorials for professional typography. Prerequisites: AGD 1000, 2030, ART 1010, 1020, 2030, or permission of the instructor.
Introduction to the technical and formal issues of photography and photomechanical processes as they relate to visual communications; terminology, photographic history within the context of graphic design. Introduction to raster imaging/manipulation for print and screen. Prerequisites: AGD 1000, 2010, 2030, 3010, ARH 2530, ART 1010, 1020, 2030, or permission of the instructor.
Emphasis on experimentation with design and materials as related to the exploration of volume and space in three dimensions. Projects involve sculptural objects and architectural and environmental design. Studio projects will be completed outside of class. Prerequisites: AGD 1000, ARH 2530, ART 1010, 1020, 2030, or permission of the instructor.
Survey of the inventions, movements, designs, and individuals that have international historical significance and influence in the development of visual communications. Concentration on late 19th and 20th centuries. Prerequisites: None, but ARH 2530 recommended.
Builds upon and relies on vocabulary, experimentation, and projects from AGD 2010 and thoroughly covers combining of typeface designs. More advanced, multi-page documents, kinetic type, motion graphics, and broadcast typography projects. Prerequisites: AGD 1000, 2010, 2030, ART 1010, 1020, 2030, or permission of the instructor.
Intermediate course in the principles and vocabulary of graphic design and visual communications. Builds on AGD 2000 in project complexity and develops analytical and intuitive approaches to problem solving based on needs/desires of audience. Oral presentation and design vocabulary reinforced with project critiques. Prerequisites: AGD 1000, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, 3010, ARH 2530, ART 1010, 1020, 2030, or permission of the instructor.
Six seminar style classes provide guidance with written statements, documentation of artwork and presentation format for the portfolio submission. Guest speakers and/or presentations provide information related to the portfolio packet, eventual career paths and exhibition issues. Portfolio is due during the 7th week of the semester. Prerequisites: ARH 2530, ART 1010, 1020, 2030, AGD 1000, 2030, or permission of the instructor.
Intermediate digital photography and imaging as they relate to visual communication design. Studio lighting techniques explored for portraits and products. Prerequisites: AGD 1000, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, 3010, ARH 2530, ART 1010, 1020, 2030, or permission of the instructor.
Advanced design problems with emphasis on design systems and experimentation with various media/vehicles for the communication of creative solutions. Projects focus on appropriateness to specific audiences through the role of context in the interpretation of form. Prerequisites: AGD 3000, 3010, 3020, or permission of the instructor.
The internship is designed as a seminar while providing an experiential learning opportunity to integrated graphic design theory and practice through on-the-job experience. The intern will be placed in a professional setting for observation and supervised design-related duties. The intern will work for a total of 90 hours. The seminar component of the course will provide opportunities to meet, discuss, and share topics of the work place experiences. This internship is a non-salaried opportunity for students to observe, examine, and participate in the creative dynamics and procedural operations of an art organization, arts-related business, professional studio, agency, or with an expert crafts worker. Sponsor supervised. (4-8 hours per week.) Can be up to two sponsors. Prerequisites: AGD 3000, 3010, 3020, Junior status within B.F.A. major, 3.0 GPA or better, and written consent of the instructor, department chair and the sponsor.
Introduction to the visual design and structuring of information in interactive design. Topics include animation, motion graphics, and websites as narrative and media approaches to the organization of content. Prerequisites: AGD 3000, 3010, 3020, or permission of the instructor.
Advanced level of graphic design problem solving that concentrates on the relationship between message and media, and the exploration of both digital and traditional production techniques. Studio projects include problems integrating typographic, photographic, and historical concepts in graphics communication. Prerequisites: AGD 3030, 3050, or permission of the instructor.
The primary mission of the Graphic Design Workshop is twofold; first, to provide students with professional experience and business knowledge, second, to perform a community service to local, regional and/or national non-profit organizations. Under the guidance of faculty, students are responsible for direct client contact, design, illustration, photography, market research, media placement, and/or production schedules. (In most cases, these organizations economically would be unable to utilize the resources of ad agencies and design firms.) This is an advanced-level studio requiring independent solving of “real-world” design problems, as well as other advanced studio class projects. Prerequisites: AGD 3030, 3050, or permission of the instructor.
B.F.A. candidates will prepare, install, and exhibit a body of work to fulfill the B.F.A. exit requirement. Prerequisites: Senior status, past portfolio review, and concurrently enrolled in the final courses in the major area. AGD 4020 and ART 4010 are taught with concurrent enrollment required.


text:
1.3.	Protecting your personal data is very important to us. We process your data primarily to provide a functional and convenient-to-use website. We would like to ensure that you can use our content and offers through these websites. In addition, we process your data only if and to the extent permitted by law. Please refer to the provisions below for further information in this connection.
2.2.	Our system must temporarily store the IP address to permit delivery of a website to your computer. For this purpose, your IP address must be stored for the duration of the respective use of the website. Storage in log files thus serves the website’s functionality. We also use these data to improve our website and secure our information-technology systems. The data are not used for marketing purposes in this context. The legal basis for temporary storage of data and of log files is Art. 6 (1) (f) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter: ‘GDPR’).
2.3.	The data are stored until the purpose for their collection has been achieved. If data are required to provide the website, then there is no further need to store them once the respective session has come to an end. Your data are then automatically deleted. If the data have been stored in log files, this will be undertaken after seven days’ time at the latest. If the aforementioned data remain in storage, however, your IP address will be deleted or altered to prevent any assignment of the Internet connection calling up the site. Collection of data for provision of the website and the storage of data in log files are absolutely necessary for operation of the website.
2.4.	If we evaluate your usage behaviour on our website beyond this, we use your data exclusively in anonymised or pseudonymised form to improve the operability of the website and the usage experience for our visitors. ‘Pseudonymised’ means that characteristics that permit association with a unique individual are removed and replaced by a new value. Anyone who is not privy to this value will not be in a position to draw conclusions about the individual to whom your individual data apply. For details, please refer to Section 3 of this Privacy Statement.
3.1.	We use so-called ‘cookies’ on our website. These are text files which are stored in and from your Internet browser to your computer system. If you call up our website, a cookie can be stored on your system. It contains an individual string of characters by means of which your browser can be identified the next time you access our website.
In the following sections, we explain in detail the types of cookies we use and which data are processed there in each case.
3.7.	The basis in law for the processing of personal data using cookies is Art. 6 (1) (f) GDPR. The data collected using technically necessary cookies are not used to generate user profiles. If you object to use of these cookies or configure your browser accordingly, our website will not recognise your browser, which may make it impossible to retrieve certain content or lead to the loss of data (e.g. from an input screen) as a result.
3.9.	Analytical cookies are used to improve the quality of our website and its content. With analytical cookies, we learn how the website is used and can constantly optimise our offer. These purposes also encompass our legitimate interest in the processing of personal data in accordance with Art. 6 (1) (f) GDPR. When you enter our website, you will be presented with a banner notifying of the use of such cookies and requesting your consent. In this respect, an additional basis in law is constituted by Art. 6 (1) (a) GDPR.
3.10.	If you object to use of these cookies or configure your browser accordingly, this does not place you at a disadvantage. All of the functionality of the website will still be available.
•	Commissioned by us, Google will use this information to analyse use of our online offer, to compile reports about activities within this online offer, and to provide us with additional services relating to use of this online offer and Internet usage. The data processed can be used to generate pseudonymous usage profiles.
•	We use Google Analytics only with activated IP anonymisation. What this means is that Google will truncate your IP address within Member States of the European Union, or in other Signatory States to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Only in exceptional cases is the full IP address sent to a Google server in the USA and truncated there. Google will not merge the IP address transmitted by your browser with other data.
•	Further information on data use for advertising purposes by Google, and on options for settings and objections can be found at the Google websites: https://www.google.com/intl/de/policies/privacy/partners/ (‘How Google uses information from sites or apps that use our services’), http://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ads (‘Advertising’), http://www.google.de/settings/ads (‘Control the information Google uses to show you ads’) and http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ (‘Ads Personalization on Google Search’). As an alternative to a browser add-on or for browsers on mobile devices, please click this link in order to avoid future detection by Google Analytics on this website. This stores an opt-out cookie on your device. This cookie stores a statement that we do not have permission to use your data for Google Analytics. If you delete the cookies you have saved, you will need to click on this link again.
•	We use Google AdWords only with activated IP anonymisation. What this means is that Google will truncate your IP address within Member States of the European Union, or in other Signatory States to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Only in exceptional cases is the full IP address sent to a Google server in the USA and truncated there. Google will not merge the IP address transmitted by your browser with other data.
•	You may prevent storage of cookies by means of a browser setting; in addition, you may prevent capture of the data generated by the cookie relative to your usage of the online offer by Google, along with processing of these data by Google, by downloading and installing the browser plug-in available through the following link: https://policies.google.com/technologies/ads?hl=de. The remarks already made with regard to Google apply as well.
4.2.	Data are exchanged with the above-mentioned social media operators only if the corresponding symbol button is clicked (e.g. the ‘f’ icon for Facebook or the camera icon for Instagram). Clicking such a symbol button opens a page of the corresponding social media operator in a pop-up window. There, you may publish information about our products in compliance with the rules of the respective social media operator.
4.3.	If you click on a link to a social network, it creates a connection to the servers of the social networks. We have no influence on the scope of the data that the respective social network collects.
4.4.	If you are already logged in to a social network during your visit to our web pages, the operator of this social network may conceivably be able to associate the visit with your personal account as soon as you click on the link to the social network.
4.6.	If you are a member of a social network and would like to limit the collection of data via our websites as well as the merging of your user data with the data stored on your social network, you should log out of the social network before visiting our websites. We encourage the use of appropriate add-ons for the browser you use (e.g. the so-called ‘Facebook Blocker’). We cannot accept any liability for the effectiveness of such solutions, however.
5.1.	You are welcome to contact us via e-mail.
5.2.	In case of contact, you may object to the storage of your personal data at any time. To do so, please simply send a message to the contact data shown above. In these cases, however, processing of your message will not be possible.
5.3.	The basis in law for the processing of your data in this connection is Art. 6 (1) (f) GDPR, as there is a legitimate interest in doing so on our part. If contact is made via form or e-mail in connection with conclusion of a contract, then Art. 6 (1) (b) GDPR provides an additional legal basis for processing.
5.4.	We process personal data from e-mails exclusively for purposes of dealing with your contact with us. To this extent, the data are not transferred on to third parties. We delete your data as soon as they are no longer required to achieve the purpose for which they were collected. For personal data from the input screen of the contact form, and for data that has been transmitted via e-mail, this case occurs if the respective correspondence with you has been completed. The correspondence is deemed to have been completed if it is evident from the circumstances that the matter at hand has been conclusively resolved.
5.5.	If the data are required for performance of a contract or for carrying out pre-contractual measures, the data may be deleted prematurely only as permitted by contractual or legal obligations. The storage periods that apply here must be determined individually for the respective contracts and contracting parties.
We work with service providers whom we have commissioned for the processing of certain data. This is done exclusively consistently with the applicable privacy law. Specifically, we have concluded with our service providers – where required by law – agreements on data processing by commission that comply with the requirements of Art. 28 GDPR and that instruct the service providers in the proper handling of these data. By means of careful selection and regular control, we ensure that our service providers take all organisational and technical steps required to protect your data.
Below, we provide a summary of your rights pursuant to GDPR and the German Data Protection Act (BDSG).
for the future; this shall have no effect on the legality of processing of data prior to the withdrawal.
You have the right to obtain information about the personal data relating to you, and the circumstances of the processing thereof, such as the purposes for which these data are processed or the duration of their storage.
You have the right to require that inaccurate data concerning you be corrected.
In principle, you may require us to erase the personal data concerning you if, as a matter of law, these data are no longer required or may no longer be processed.
You have the right to restrict further processing of your personal data, e.g. if your data cannot be deleted due to conflicting storage obligations.
We have an obligation to notify all recipients to whom your data have been disclosed of rectification or deletion of your data as well as of any restriction of processing thereof. We are not required to notify these recipients only if notifying them is impossible or involves disproportionate effort. We will inform you about those recipients if you request it.
You are entitled to receive your personal data from us in a commonly used and machine-readable format. If we process your personal data in order to carry out direct advertising, you may object to this. This also applies to profiling in connection with such direct advertising. Once you have filed your objection, your data will no longer be processed for these purposes.
If we process your data on the basis of a legitimate interest (Art. 6 (1) (f) GDPR), you have the right to object if the reasons for this arise on grounds of your particular situation. This also applies to profiling based on this provision.
You have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, if this produces legal effects concerning you or similarly affects you.
By way of exception, automated decision-making is permitted if (i) you have granted your express consent beforehand, or (ii) the decision is required for the conclusion or performance of a contract between you and us, or (iii) applicable legal measures permit this, and these measures contain appropriate measures to safeguard your rights and freedoms as well as your legitimate interests.
In cases (i) and (ii), we take appropriate steps to safeguard your rights and freedoms as well as your legitimate interests. These include your right to state your point of view, to contest the automatic decision, and to obtain human intervention on the part of one of our employees.
You have the right to lodge a complaint with the competent supervisory authority if you consider that the processing of personal data relating to you violates the General Data Privacy Regulation.
LEFFERS & CO GMBH & CO.KG.
Juhasz GmbH & Co. KG.
Freiwahl Kaufhaus GmbH & Co.
Please enter a different search term.

matches:
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 28


Appellant Amin A. Rashid appeals from an order of the District Court denying his motion for reconsideration and motion to reopen seeking to disqualify the District Judge. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.
Rashid was charged by Indictment on August 21, 2008 with two counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and one count of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c)(5). On May 28, 2009, a Superseding Indictment charged him with ten counts of mail fraud, eight counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of forging or counterfeiting postal money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500. A jury found Rashid guilty of nine counts of mail fraud and all eight counts of aggravated identity theft, and not guilty of one count of mail fraud and of forging or counterfeiting postal money orders. In a Judgment entered on July 24, 2013, the District Court sentenced Rashid to a total term of imprisonment of 240 months. We affirmed on November 25, 2014, see United States v. Rashid, 593 F. App'x 132 (3d Cir. 2014). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on May 18, 2015.
Meanwhile, on January 20, 2015, Rashid filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the district where he is confined, claiming that he is actually innocent of a 1980 District of Oregon conviction for interstate transportation of stolen property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2314, that was used to enhance his 2013 Eastern District of Pennsylvania sentence. He argued that, because he was acquitted of a charge of mail fraud in the 1980 trial, it was inconsistent and improper to find him guilty of interstate transportation of money taken by fraud, and thus improper for the District Court to have enhanced his 2013 sentence based on this prior conviction. Rashid sought to have both the enhancement and the allegedly wrongful 1980 conviction vacated. Shortly after filing his petition, Rashid filed a motion to disqualify the District Judge for personal bias pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The District Court denied the motion to disqualify, and then the Government responded in opposition to the § 2241 petition, arguing that jurisdiction was lacking.
In an order entered on January 22, 2016, the District Court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that, because Rashid had already served the District of Oregon sentence, he was no longer “in custody” for habeas corpus purposes, and thus the Court was without jurisdiction to vacate the 1980 sentence and conviction. The Court further held that Rashid could not resort to a § 2241 petition to challenge the enhancement to his 2013 Eastern District of Pennsylvania sentence because he still had the opportunity to file a timely motion to vacate sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to challenge that sentence; he therefore failed to demonstrate that the remedy available to him under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective.
Rashid filed a timely motion for reconsideration and then a timely notice of appeal, resulting in the appeal docketed at C.A. No. 16-1653. The appeal was stayed, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), pending disposition of the reconsideration motion. On April 4, 2016, Rashid filed a post-judgment motion to reopen seeking again to disqualify the District Judge. The Government responded in opposition to the motion to reopen and asked the District Court to enjoin Rashid from future filings in the instant action, arguing that he was engaging in abusive and vexatious litigation.
In an order entered on June 21, 2016, and as is relevant to the instant appeal, the District Court denied Rashid's motion for reconsideration as meritless, denied his motion to reopen seeking disqualification as meritless, and denied the Government's motion to enjoin Rashid from filing anything further in his § 2241 case as moot.
On August 3, 2016, we summarily affirmed the District Court's order dismissing Rashid's § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction and interlocutory order denying his motion to disqualify the District Judge, see Rashid v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, --- F. App'x ---, 2016 WL 4123854 (3rd Cir. August 3, 2016). In the margin we advised Rashid to separately appeal the District Court's order entered on June 21, 2016, denying his motion for reconsideration and his post-judgment motion to reopen seeking disqualification, id. at *2 n.3. On August 15, 2016, Rashid timely appealed the order entered on June 21, 2016, resulting in the instant appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our Clerk granted Rashid leave to appeal in forma pauperis and advised him that the appeal was subject to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or summary action under Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. He has submitted written argument in support of the appeal, which we have considered.
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. The District Court properly denied Rashid's motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction because he did not demonstrate an intervening change in the law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error of law that would warrant reconsideration of the dismissal. See Max's Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999). The District Court properly denied Rashid's post-judgment motion to reopen seeking to disqualify the District Judge, as that motion was frivolous. See generally United States v. Rashid, 593 F. App'x 132, 135 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[T]here is no extrajudicial source demonstrating bias beyond the judicial rulings in the case ․. [and] none of Judge Rufe's actions demonstrate any personal bias.”), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2340 (2015).
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court denying Rashid's motion for reconsideration and denying his post-judgment motion to reopen seeking to disqualify the District Judge. The Clerk of the District Court is directed to file and docket Rashid's August 15, 2016 Notice of Appeal, see Docket Entry No. 24, D.C. Civ. No. 15-cv-00274), in his criminal case. That notice of appeal, in addition to referencing this civil action, also references Rashid's criminal case, D.C. Crim. No. 08-cr-00493, and in it, Rashid seeks review of the District Court's order entered on June 21, 2016 to the extent that the Court, in addition to denying the two motions at issue in this appeal, also denied his Motion to Reopen Motion for Sanctions Against the Government Due to Prosecutorial Misconduct (Docket Entry No. 493, D.C. Crim. No. 08-cr-00493), and granted the Government's Motion to Limit his Future Filings in his criminal case (Docket Entry No. 492, D.C. Crim. No. 08-cr-00493).