in error were not tried by a jury of the state and district in which the crime was committed, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, because the jurors were drawn not from the entire district but only from one division thereof. The proposition disregards the plain text of the Sixth Amendment, the contemporary construction placed upon it by the Judiciary Act of 1789 ..., and the continuous legislative and judicial practice from the beginning.”); United States v. Cannady 54 F.3d 544, 547 (9th Cir.1995)(“[T]here is no constitutional right to a jury drawn from an entire judicial district, rather than from one division of the district.... [D]emographic differences between divisions do not render division-based jury selection invalid.”); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 316-318 (3d Cir.1980)(<HOLDING>). Rule 18 provides: Unless a statute or these
holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction holding that there is no constitutional right to a jury selected from the whole district despite differences between divisions holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury holding that there is no distinction in the right to jury trial between sentencing factors and elements