There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document3 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
FILED
Plaintiff, JUN'L 4 2006
MANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK
; US. DISTRICT COURT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, » ) ro, )
Attorney General of the ) Civil Action No. U6 1052 LE, TAL. |
United States of America, ) : /
WAN J. KIM, )
Assistant Attorney General, )
Civil Rights Division, United States j
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, _)
)
)
)
Defendants.
Plaintiff has moved, pursuant to 28 ULS.C. $2284 and 42 U.S.C. §1973b, that a three-
judge court be convened to hear and determine this action for a declaratory judgment under
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act [#2]. According to the motion, the defendants do not oppose
the convening of a three-judge court. It appearing that the motion is well taken, it is this AA
day of May, 2006: |
ORDERED that plaintiffs motion [#2] is granted. And it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy of this Order to the Chief
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
| 2284(b)(1), so that a three-judge court may be corivened, yy
OO a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
¥ 4
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document3 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
FILED
Plaintiff, JUN'L 4 2006
MANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON, CLERK
; US. DISTRICT COURT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, » ) ro, )
Attorney General of the ) Civil Action No. U6 1052 LE, TAL. |
United States of America, ) : /
WAN J. KIM, )
Assistant Attorney General, )
Civil Rights Division, United States j
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, _)
)
)
)
Defendants.
Plaintiff has moved, pursuant to 28 ULS.C. $2284 and 42 U.S.C. §1973b, that a three-
judge court be convened to hear and determine this action for a declaratory judgment under
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act [#2]. According to the motion, the defendants do not oppose
the convening of a three-judge court. It appearing that the motion is well taken, it is this AA
day of May, 2006: |
ORDERED that plaintiffs motion [#2] is granted. And it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy of this Order to the Chief
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
| 2284(b)(1), so that a three-judge court may be corivened, yy
OO a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
¥ 4
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
