10-cr-3029, 2014 WL 1018081, *22 (W.D.Mo. Mar. 14, 2014) ("The Court ... joins with other district courts in concluding that the submissions fall short of the mark in establishing that the FDPA is unconstitutional.”); United States v. Sablan, Case No. 08-cr-259, 2014 WL 172543, *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014) ("This Court agrees with the other courts that have addressed and rejected the position taken by Defendant ... on whether the FDPA is incomprehensible.”). See also United States v. Williams, Case No. 08-cr-00070, 2013 WL 1335599, *17-*18 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2013) United States v. Jacques, 2011 WL 1675417, *11-*13 (D. Vt. May 4, 2011); United States v. Taylor, 635 F.Supp.2d 1243, 1247 (D.N.M. 2009); United States v. Green, Case No. 06-cr-19, 2008 WL 4000901, *2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 26, 2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mikos, Case No. 02-cr-137,
holding that complaint seeking to enjoin highway construction project pending completion of environmental impact statement for larger project no longer presented any live controversy after highway project was completed and thus was moot and provided no basis for federal court jurisdiction holding that passenger cannot maintain action for breach of implied warranty to provide safe passage holding that the movant has the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion holding empirical studies including the capital jury project provide no basis for undermining the constitutionality of the fdpa a statute that has withstood innumerable attacks since its passage in 1994 holding no right to counsel for capital defendants in state habeas proceedings