玉溪做打胎哪个医院较好玉溪市人流女子医院,玉溪做人流医院哪家好点,玉溪去哪家做人流,玉溪做人流在哪家医院,玉溪哪家正规医院做人流好些,玉溪人流手术去那个医院比较好安全,玉溪打胎的价格要多少钱

An unnamed, foreign government-owned company in a mystery court case is asking the Supreme Court to pause a grand jury subpoena it received related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.The Supreme Court appeal comes after a federal appeals court ruling that ordered the company to comply with the subpoena, which required it to turn over "information" about its commercial activity in a criminal investigation. The appeals court also said the company could face fines for every day of noncompliance.The request to the Supreme Court is the latest twist in the secret case, which is under seal and has made its way through the federal court system with uncommon speed.This is the first known legal challenge apparently related to Mueller's investigation to make its way to the Supreme Court.It is not known when the court might decide if it will take action on the company's request to appeal further. The application is likely an effort to put the lower court action on hold before the Supreme Court is asked to step in to hear an appeal."So far as we know, the Court has never had a sealed argument before all nine Justices," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "They can keep parts of the record and briefing sealed, and often do, such as in cases implicating trade secrets. But there's no procedure in the court's rules for having the whole case briefed, argued and decided under seal. The only times I'm aware of in which parties tried it, the court denied certiorari," or the review of the case.The company's challenge of the subpoena appears to have begun in September.In its ruling this past week, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia offered few clues about the company and its country of origin or what Mueller's team sought.In one short passage in the three-page decision, the judges describe how they had learned confidentially from prosecutors that they had "reasonable probability" the records requested involved actions that took place outside of the United States but directly affected the US. Even the company was not informed of what prosecutors had on the issue, because revealing it to the company would have violated the secrecy of the grand jury investigation, the judges said.The range of possibilities on the identity of the company is vast. The company could be anything from a sovereign-owned bank to a state-backed technology or information company. Those types of corporate entities have been frequent recipients of requests for information in Mueller's investigation.And though Mueller's work focused on the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors have said and CNN has reported that the Mueller team looked at actions related to Turkish, Ukrainian and other foreign government interests.Mueller previously indicted three Russian companies and 25 Russians for their alleged contributions to a social media propaganda scheme meant to influence American voters and to the hack of the Democratic Party. The special counsel and other Justice Department units continue to pursue several investigations related to Mueller's core mission.Another challenge of a Mueller subpoena, from Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller, began at the trial level months before the anonymous company's action apparently began. Miller's case is now before the DC Circuit as well but has not yet been decided by the judges. His case became public after his attorneys publicly spoke about his intention to challenge Mueller and the subpoena.The company in the Supreme Court challenge has stayed secret—as has the grand jury proceeding it's related to. And both the company, prosecutors and the circuit court took pains to keep the identities of those involved in the case under wraps. An entire floor of the DC federal courthouse was locked down by security on the morning of the company's appeal argument, so that the lawyers entering and leaving the courtroom would not be seen. 4069

ANNA MARIA ISLAND, Fla. — On June 4, the impressive raw power of how hammerhead sharks hunt was on full display.The hammerhead shark, estimated to be 13 to 14 feet long, was captured on GoPro video attacking a massive tarpon.Fishing guide 256

Anthony Rogers is an artist in Memphis. He doesn't have a home, but he does have a best friend, a 1-year-old pitbull-Labrador mix named "Bobo."Rogers woke up August 31 only to find his furry friend was nowhere to be found. A distressed Rogers was helped by friends, who made posters for the lost dog.Two weeks passed with no sighting of Bobo — that is until Wednesday, September 11.A dog matching Bobo's description showed up at 441

BRADENTON, Fla. -- Local Girl Scout troops say they lost at least 0 while selling cookies over the weekend when some customers paid with 152

As President Donald Trump moves forward with plans to build additional physical barriers along the southern border, his administration will have to contend with a slew of lawsuits challenging the national emergency declaration allowing him, in part, to do so.So far, at least four lawsuits have been filed challenging the declaration. The argument at the core of each lawsuit is similar: Trump exceeded his authority and circumvented Congress in an attempt to achieve his signature campaign promise for an emergency that, plaintiffs argue, doesn't exist.Here's a rundown of the lawsuits:State of California et al. vs. Trump et al. Plaintiffs: 16 states, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to halt the President's declaration. The complaint accuses Trump of carrying out an "unconstitutional and unlawful scheme," and describes how states "stand to lose millions in federal funding" and could "cause damage to their economies."The complaint includes Trump's remark that he didn't need to declare the emergency.Attorneys general from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia joined California in the lawsuit. All states, except Maryland, are led by Democratic governors.Location: Northern District of California.Judge: Elizabeth D. Laporte, Clinton appointee.Status: Filed.Center for Biological Diversity et al. vs. Trump et al. Plaintiffs: The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Animal Legal Defense Fund.The 1612