# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Hernandez v. Rice

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0915%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1990
- **Citation:** 494 U.S. 1013

## Text

| ame IO UR,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES——_..

OCTOBER TERM, 1989

ABEL 4. HERNANDEZ

V.
DONALD B. RISE
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
PETITION FOR A WRIT CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

PETITIONER (AS DEFENDANT)
ABEL H. HERNANDEZ
406 "H" STREET
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78220

(512) 333-1600

i. _
Question for presented for review
petition for reverse and remand
for Hearing . on Melin W. Cole V.
General Howard W. penny .The court
of Appeals was not force by Circuit

precedent to affirm with lower Court

STATUTE
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) page 3
42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5 page 5

2000e-4(e) page 12

AUTHORITIES

MELIN W. COLE V. GENERAL HOWARD W.

PENNY 531 F.2d-609 page 4
APPENDIX A 1A
APPENDIX B 13B

APPENDIX C 14C

a ra
= — a _— a? a
— - 7 eer. See eae a ssn — = 7
: : ra © var ae “y er,
on 7 ¢ 4
7 :
« as ) F
> a
: 4 ° - : -
x ‘1 |
a d
*

=ape -

Did the Fifth Circuit Court err in
refusing to reverse and remand Distr-
ict Court Judge Edward C. Prado E.X.
Agency legal advisor as EX. U.S.
Attorney . When Judge Prado concur
with U.S. Attorney ,HELEN MILBURN
EVERBURERG and JACK B. MOYNYHAN
assistance U.S. Attorney ,with the
legal advise of the Air Force
counsel David C. Divon, Major Trial
Attorney( investigator Attorney ).
General Litigation,Division office
of the Juudge Advocate General 1900
Haft Street,S.W.,Room 5142 Washing-
ton, D.C. 20324-1000 telephone (202)
475-2755 FTS 475-2755 . When they
agreed with Judge Prado's dismissal

of my title VII Employment rights

In the instructions to file a

title VII E.E.0O.C. complaint reciev-

2.
ed February 18,1988 . Sent to me by
the Director of the Dept. of the
Equal Employment Opportunity system
within the Air Force . Stella Guerra
(Hispanic) from San Antonio,Texas ,
at W.D.C. 2033-1000. She or her
secretary,sent me the wrong instruc-
tions for federal employees to file
a sue in the lower Court , were
William Session used to be the
Chief Judge ,the local federal lower
Court ,which He is now the Director
of F.B.I. Dept. Everytime a case
comes to federal Court,the F.B.I.
goes out and investigates the case.
In this case I have an Equal Employ-
ment Complaint in S.A.,TX. . On the
second paragraph it states . The
purpose of the right to sue letter

is to notify you of your rights and

which you may file a case . I auto-
*

maticly assumed I had 90 days in

which to file a sue in the local

District Court

As stated by the Fifth Circuit
Court HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE NO.88-
5506 page 2157 . There is currently
a divergence of authority among the
Courts of Appeals on wehter the
thirty day limitation period con-
tained in 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-16(c) is
a jurisdictional limitation or
wether the limitation is more akin
to a statute of limitation and there
fore subject to waiver, estoppel,
and equitable tolling. Tolling ( As
a State that charges a tolling to

cross its bridge ).

4.
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE (from now

on refer to as HERNANDEZ V. RISE ,
as we now have a new secretary of
the Dept. of the Air Force ,
[ Donald B. RISE ] .On page 2156,
Johnson, Circuit Judge, stated that
Cognizant of the unequitable result
which flows from our action today,
we nevertheless are compelled by
circuit precedent to affirm the
District Court's dismissal of
HERNANDEZ claim. See Melin W. Cole
V. General Howard W. Penny . 531F.2d
-609, Court remand for further
proceeding . The Court of Appeais

was not force by Circuit precedent

to affirm with lower Court

U.S. District Court Western
of Texas San Antonio Division .
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE Civil acton
NO: SA~88-CA-0237 Memorandum of
pionts and authority in support
of motion to dismiss . They stated
that petitioner as (defendant )
improperly alleged jursidictin under
42 U.S.C.2000e-5 . Did the lower
court and the fifth circuit court
fail to see, when the lower court
dismiss petitioner case and the fifth
circuit of appeals affirm with the
lower court . When clerk should
have given petitioner the proper
jursidictonal statute for alleged
violations involing employees of
the federal agencys is 42 U.S.C.
2000e-16 . Lower court fail to give
petitioner the proper jursidictional

statute .

See verbatm transcript docket NO:
360-87-O0066X agency F860159-0 .
E.E.0.C. HEARING Date 21,May, 1987
on page 24 ,petitioner stated . I
got 106 credit hours liberal arts
and science . See xehibit # 1
college transcripts . Also see
Education equal opportunity commis-

sion system .

On fifth circuit court HRNANDEZ V.
ALDRIDGE page 2157 circuit JUDGE JOHNSON
»STATED "U.S. Magistrate who on Mar. 29,
1988 granted HERNANDEZ"S request to
proceed in forma pauperis but later denied

HERNANDEZ's motion for appionted counsel -«

On July ,25,1988 timestudy case U.S.
District court Western District of SAN
Antonio Division HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

NO: SA-88-CA-237 . The U.S. Magistrate

heaters

a.
Judge Robert B. O'Conner of the lower

federal court of U.S. gov't ORDER .

On paragraph (12) U.S. Magistrate Judge
stated "the proof of plaintiff's claim
is not complicated and he should not
haven no difficulty propounding the
necessary questions to develope the
eidence pertaining to his allegaton
which was fully developed in an

administrivie Judge .

8.
See Brief to U.S. fifth Circuit

court of the appeals were petitiner
stated I'm a member of the ROSI-

CRUCIAN ORDER . See Exhibit # 2

On August,10, 1988, U.S. District
court Western District of Texas San
Antonio Division HERNANDEZ V.

ALDRIDGE CIVIL action NO:SA-88-CA-

237 . petitioner motion to represent him
self in court . See Moore Manual Fed.
Practice & Procedure . 13.02(2) Interst
of parties (2)-capacity of individual
actiing in a representive capacity of an
,In general .the capacity is to be deter
mined by law of the state in which the
district court is held , as provide in
the third sentence of rule 17(b) .
Vernon;s Texas rules of civil procedure.
Rule 7 May appear by Attorney . Any party

to a suit may appear and prosecute or

9.
defend his rights therein , either in

person or by an Attorney of the court

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE NO:88-5603 Fifth
states on page 2158 that petitioner has
not been neglient nor dilatory in any
manner in pursuing his title VII claim in
Federal district court -.Did fifth circuit
err , when it stated that I sue wrong
party , when I. tried to explain were the
fault was of untimely . And it was in the

lower court administration hands

Then U.S. district court Judge EDWARD
C. PRADO order that defendant motion to
Gismiss plaintiff title VII Employment
right's granted on August,30, 1988 ,.
Then tolling petitioner for their
{ untimely stategy of debate . Mar. 23,
1988, I received a letter from CHARLES

V. WAGNER Clerk og U.S. district court of

10.
Western district San Antonio Division

U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Clerk
M. Tomeny - New Oreans , Luisiana 70130
order that plaintiff pay to defendant the
cost on Appeals , to be Taxed by the Clerk.
Petitioner as moving party ask the Supreme
Court of the United States to reyguest from
U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit USDC#SA
-~88-CA-237 NO:88-5603 HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE
STATEMENTS of FACTS of BRIEF . Submitted by

by Petitioner on OCT. 26 , 1988

November, 28 ,1988, defendant submitted
motion to substitute correct Brief to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit ,

case NO:88-5603

I chaged name of defendant to new

Secretary of dept. of Defence DANOLD

B. RISE .HERNANDEZ V. RISE

li.

Petitioner request Supreme Court to
have Recommened Decision by EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIONER
DOCKET NO: 360-87-0066X agency NO: F.
870159-0 . To be send to U.S. SUPREME
COURT , by the U.S. Court Western

District of Texas San Antonio Division

February 18, 1988, I was going to
submitted a verbatim transcript to the
bistrict Clerk Charles W. Vagner, but
she said District Court already had a
copy in file . I request the U.S. Supreme
Court to have the verbabim transcript
send to the U.S. Supreme Court by the
District Court -U.S. Court House 655 E.
DURANGO BLVD . San Antonio , TX. 78206-1196

Verbatim transcript (docket NO: 360-87-
0066X ( agency NO: F860159-0 Hearing Date
May, 21, 1987 .

l2.

Certiorari to CONGRESS in accordens to
Statute 2000e-4(e) . [{ Report to CONGRESS
and the PRESIDENT on EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION COMPLAINT

See Affidavid to District Court
I contact Mexican American Legal defense
They said they could't represent American

Indians . See Exhibit #+ 4 of MALDEF

Petitioner prays as ( defendant ) that
U.S. Supreme Court GRANT WRIT of CERTIORARI,

for HEARING .

Respectfully Submitted

Ul bperanelay~

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ

JULY ,6 ,1989

13.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
HU Nhemenba,
ABEL H. HERNANDEZ
PETITIONER
406 "H" STREET
SAN ANTONIO TEXAS 78220
(512) 3331600

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I ABEL H. HERNANDEZ , DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THREE COPIES EACH OF THE FORE
GOING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT WAS MAILED, ‘POSTAGE PREPAID,
TO SOLICITOR GENERAL , DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE , WASHINGTON ,D.C. 20530
AND U.S. ATTORNEY HELEN MILBURN
EVERBURERG AND JACK B. MOYNHAN
727 E. DURANGO BLVD. A-601
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78206

On the 6 day of July ,1989 .,

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ

APPENDIX A 1A
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
Vv.
EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE, III, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
NO. 88-5603.
SUMMARY CALENDAR.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS,
FIFTH CIRCUIT.

MARCH 1. 1989.

Air force employee appealed from order
of the United statea District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Esward
C. prado,J., dismissing his Title VII’
employment discrimination action. The
Court of Appeals, Johnson, Circuit Judge,
held that 30-day period in which air for-
ce employee was required to file Title
VII employment discrimination suit in
federal district court after receiving
notice of Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission,s final decision and right-to
suit letter was jurisdictional.

AFFIRMED.

APPENDIX A 2A
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

CIVIL RIGHTS

Thirty-day period inwhich air force
employee was required to file Title VII
employment discrimination suit in federal
district court after receiving notice of
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
final decision and right-to-suit letter
was jurisdictional, precluding district
courtfrom exercising jurisdiction after
emplayee's complaint was filed outside
30-day period even though employee sub-
mitted hiscivil complaint alleging to
clerk of within 30-day period ,complaint
was not actually filed. Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 717(c), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.

2000e-16(c).

Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before CLERK, Chief Judges,
JOHNSON, and JOLLY,Circuit Judges.

|

APPENDIX A 3A
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

JOHNSON,Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff ABEL HERNANDEZ brought the
instant suit alleging that he had been
discriminated against by the Department
of the Air Force after he received a
letter of reprimand from the Air Force
for falsifying official government doc-
uments. Ultimately, the district court

dismissed Hernandez’s discrimination :
complaint for lackof jurisdiction.
Cognizant of the unequitblie result which
flows from our action today, we neverthe-
less are complelled by Circuit precedent
to affirm the district court's dismissal
of Hernandez‘s claim.

-

The facts of the instant case straight
forward and undisputed. On October 15,
1985, Hernandez filed an informal compl-
aint of discrimination: against the Air
Force following his reprimand on October
10,1985, for falsifying official govern-
ment documents. Thereafter, Hernandez
filed a formal complaint of discrimination
on October30,1985.

APPENDIX A 4A
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

Hernandez subsequently pursued his
administrative remedies and,on february
16, 1988, the Equal Employment Opportun-
ity Commission (EEOC) issued a final
decision concluding that the Air Force
had demonstrated legitmate nondiscrimin-
atory reasons for repr’ nanding Hernandez.
Hernandez than received notice of the
fimal decision of the EEOC and-his right-
to-sue letter on February 18, 1988.

Thereafter, on March 10, Hernandez sub-
mitted his civil complaint allegingdisc-
rimination to the United States District
Court Clerk which’ the District clerk
marked "received" *However,though the. com-
plaintwas submitted to the Clerk, the-

Clerk only marked it “received” and the
complaint was not actually filed at that

time. At the same time Hernandez submitted

his complaint to the DistrictClerk'’s Office

Hernandez also filed a motion to proceed

in pauperis and a motion for appointment

of counsel. The above motions were refer-

red to a United States Magistrate who,

on March 29, 1988,granted Hernandez,s

request to proceed in forma pauperis but
later denied Hernandez's motion for

appointed counsel. On the day Hernandez

APPENDIX A 5A
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

moton to proceed in forma pauperis was
granted, March 29, 1988, the District
Clerk filed Hernandez’s complaint, forty
days after Hernandez receivednotice of the
final decision of the EE6O€ and his right-
to- sue letter. Thereafter, in response
to the Government's motion to dismiss
Hernandez‘'s claim pursuant to fed. R.Civ.
P, 12(b)(1), the district court dismissed
Hernandez‘'s complaint for lack of jurisd-
iction since Hernandez did not timely
file his federat complaint within thirty
daysof his receipt of the EEOC’s final
decision and his right-to-sue letter.

Il.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c), a
federal government employeeis afforded
thirty days from the receipt of notice
of theEEOC's final decision to file a Title
VII Employment discrimination suit in
federal district court. In the instant
case, Hernandez received notice of the
EEOC’s final decision and his right-to-
sue letter on February 18, 1988; thefore
Hernandez had until approximately March
18, 1988, to file his discrimination suit
in federal district court. As previosly

a

APPENDIX A 6A
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIQGE

noted, however, Hernandez's civil compl-
aint was not filed in federal district
court until March 29,1988,thea date the
magistate granted Hernandez's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.

Ther is currently a divergence of au-
thority among the courts of appeals on
whether the thirty day limitation period
contained in 42U.S.C. -2000e16(c) is a
jurisdictional limitation or whether the
liritation and therefore subject to wai-
ver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.

See Martinez V. Orr,738 F.2d 1107,1110
(10th Cir.1984); Milam V. United States
Postal Service,674 F.2d 860,862 (llth -
Cir.1982); Saltz V.Lehman, 672 F.2d 207,
208(D.C.Cir.1982)(concluding that the day
limitation period in42 U.S.C. 2000e-16
(c) is subject to equitable tolling).

But see Sims V.Heckler, 725 F.2d 1143,
1145-6 (7th Cir.1984); Rice V. Hamilton
Air Force Base Commissary, 720 F.2d 1082,
1083 (9th Cir.1983) concluding that the
thirty day filing requirement is of jur-
sdictional weight). In Stuckett V. United
Postal Service, 469 U.S.898,105S.Ct. 274,
83 L.Ed.2d 210(1984), Justice Whte, joined >
by Justice Rehnquist, from the Court's

a

7 APPENDIX A 7A
: HERNANDEZ V. ALDEIDGE

denial of a petition for writ of
May 29, 1988.

certiorari in that case after recognizing
the differing pronouncements on this issue
among the Circuits. In his dissent, Justice
White noted that the Supreme Court had
receently resolved the conflict among the
Circuits regarding the jurisdictional sign-
ificance of the ninety day limitation for
private sector discrimination case in Zipes
V. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,455 U.S. 385
102 S.Ct. 1127,71 L.Ed.2da 234(1982), and
concluded that the Supreme Court shoulkd
Similarly address the thirty day limitation
applicable to federal employees. Id, 105
S.Ct.at 274-75.

This Circuit in Eastland V. Tennessee
Vakley Authority 553 F.2d 364,368(5thCir.)
,cert, denied, 434 U.S,985, 98 S.Ct.61l,
54 LEd2d 479 (1977), held that the thirty
day civil action filing limitaion for
federal employees is a jurisdictional
requirement; however,the above ruling
inEastland was later called in to question
by this Court in Antoine V. United States

APPENDIX A BA
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

Postal :Service ,781 F2d 433, 439 n. 6
(5thCir.1986). Specifically,the Antoine
Court questioned the validty ofthe
Eastland rulong due to the fact that the
Eastland decision relied heavily on a
series of cases holding that the ninety
day filing requirement in private sector
discrimination cases pursuant to 42 U.S.
C. 2000e-16(c) was ajurisdictional requ-
irement. the Antoine Court thennoted that
» subsequent to the Eastland decision,
this Court, as well as the Supreme Court
in Zipes, concluded that the ninety day
filing requiremrnt for civil actions in
private sector cases was in fact not
jurisdictional in nature; thus;, the
Court in Antoine called into question the
validity of the Eastland rule. Id. Since
the Antoine decision, thisCourt has de-
finitive concluded that the thirty day

filing requirement contained in section
2000e-16(c)is a jursdictional requirem-

ent which is not subject to equitable
tolling or equitable estoppel. See Bell
V. Veterans Administation Hospital, 826
F.2d 357,36061 (5th Cir. 1987); Brown
V. Department of Army, *54 F.2d 77, 78
n. 1 (5thCir. 1988). Therfore, bound by
the law of this CirCuit, we are constr-

APPENDIX A 9A
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

ained to affirm the district Court's
dismissal of Hernandez‘’s complaint for
failure to timely file his complaint in
federal district court.

In doing so, however, it should be noted
that if ever therwas a case which the
principles of equity would dictate should
be reversed, this is such a case as Hern-
andez does not appesr tohave been negligent
or even dilatory in any manner in pursuing
his Title VIIclaim in federal district
court. By contrast,in Bell V.Veterans
Administration, the plaintiff Bell named
and sued the wrong party in his complaint.

Therefore, despite the fact that the
district court personnel assured Bell that
they would effect service of his complaint,
equilty did not compel a result in that =
case which would effectively hold the
DistrictClerk's Office culpable for results
vnat arise when a plaintiff sues the wrong
party. Similarly,in Brown VY. Department of
Army, the plaintiff Brown named the wrong
defendants in his federal complaint. In the
instant case, huwever, Hernandez, apro se
plaintiff, submitted his civil complaint
containing allegation of discrimination
to the United States District Clerk On

APPENDIX A 10A
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

March 10,1988, well within the thirty
dayfiling limitation contained insection
2000e-16(c). Further, it was onthe exact
day that Hernandez's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis was granted by the magis-
tratethat Hernandez‘’s civil complaint was
technically "filed" by the Federal Dist-
rict Court Clerk. Certainly, the District
Court Clerk. Certainly, the District Clerk’
actions can be construed as "lulling”
Hernandez into inaction and laeding Her-
nandez into believing that he done every
thing that he had done everything required
to initiate a timely complaint in federal
court. See Antoine, 781F.2d at 439.

As noted by the Tenth Circuit in Mart-
inez V. Orr,

Section 2000e-16 was added to Act in
1972 in orderto correct the ‘entrenched
discrimination in the Federal service’
and to insure ‘the effective application
of uniform, fair and strongly enforced
policies." The legislative history of
the amendment indicates that in extending
the coverage of Title VII to federal empl-
oyees, Congress intended togive them ess-
entially the same rights and remedies
as had been private sector. In view of
the principle that Title VII ‘is a

APPENDIX A 11A
HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

: remedial stute to be liberally construed
; in victims of discrimination,’ we concude
that the thirty-day time limitation of
section 2000e-16(c)is not jurisdictional
and may be subject to equitable tolling

in appropriate cases.

738 F2d at 1110 (ciations and footnote
omitted). Despite these compelling argv-
ments for concluding that the thirty day
filing requirement in seetion 2000e-16
(c) is not a jurisdiotional prequisite,
we are compelled by Circuit precedent
to affirm the district court in the instant
case. Perhaps,however,the time has come
for this Court to consider anew its deci-
sion in this area so as to avoid inequit-
able results such as the one suffered by
Hernandez in the instant case.

see 8° ose & €s Mw —

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ae,

NO. 88-5603
SUMMARY CALENDAR

D. C. DOCKET NO. SA-88-cVv-237
TIME CASE STUDY--RECORD TIME SPEND BY
JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE---U.S. COURT---FILED
- =“ MARCH 1 1989---GIBERT F. GANUCHEAU CLERK

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ
VERSUS
. EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE, III
{ SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT REF ENDANT
THE AIR FORCE,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

~APPELLEE

FILED MARCH 28,1989
CHARLES W. VAGNER, CLERK
BY J.J. DEPUTY

Appeal from theUnited States District
Court for the western District of Taxes

Before CLERK, Chief Judge,JOHNSON, and
JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This cause came on to be heard on the
record on appeal and was takem under
submission on the brief on file. -

APPENIX p 13B

ON CCNSIDERATION WHEREOF, It is now here
orderd and adjudged by this Court that
the judgment of District Court in this
cause is affirmed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERD That plaintiff-
appellant pay to defendant-appellee the
costs on appeal, to be taxed by the Clerk
of this Court.

March 1, 1989
ISSUED AS MANDATE: MAR 23 1989
A true copy
Test GIBERT F /'-GANUCHEAU
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit
By M. TOMENY
DEPUTY
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISANA
MAR. 23,1989

OP-JDT-9C
Rev. 4/85

APPENDIX C 14C

TIME STUDY CASE---RECORD TIME SPENT BY
JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ,
PLAINTIFF,

Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-
88-CA-237

EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE, JR.,
Secretary of the Air Force,
Defendant.
JUDGMENT

On this date came on to be considered
the Judgment to be entered in the above
styled and numbered cause.

Consistent with the Order of the Court
entered in this cause on this same date,

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and
DECREED that Defendant;s Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 12,F.R. Civ. P. GBANTED
such that plaintiff;s Complaint and in
this cause of action against Defendant
are DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12
(bd) (1).

a Re pine

APPENDIX C 1§C

Sign and ENTERED this 30 th/ day of
AUGUST, 1988.

EDWARD C. PRADO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EXHIBIT #1 (1)

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO
Centro de Ensenanza para Extranjeros
Constancia Estudios realisados por-

ABEL HERNANDEZ HERRERA

DURANTE 1978-1984 EN LA

ESCUELA PERMANENTE DE EXTENSION EN
SAN ANTONIO , TEXAS

CURSO-NUM.-MATERIAS-CALIFICACIONES CREDITOS

203ESP CONVERSACION II1,1978, B 3
303ESP CONVERSACION 11,1979, B 3
210ESP ESPANOL II ,1983, B+ 4
ESP ESPANOL III, 1983, B ot

307ESP ESPANOL PARA BILGUES ,1984, B +
CENTO DE ENSENANZA PARA EXTRANJEROS

SERVICIOS ESCUELARES

EXHIBIT # 1 (2)
ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

ST. PHILIPS COLLEGE
SAN ANTONIO ,TEXAS
ACADEMIC RECORD
NO: TITLE OF COURE SEM. HRS. GR. PTS

SPING SEMESTER 1975

300 English 3 3 C 6
101 ORIENTATION 1 1 Cc 2
300 DLEVL READING 3 3 B 9

FIRST SEMESTER 1975
302 PRINC OF ECONOM 3 7.9 C 6
306 BASIC MATH 3 7.5 ¢ 6
FIRST SUMMER SESSION 1984
300 BASIC TYPE WRIT 3 6 C 6
200 BASIC VIOSE 2 2-5 A 8
FALL SEMETER 1984
1312 APPIED PSYCH 3 3 C 6
1403 HUM ANAT.&PHY. 4 3 D a

ABEL H HERNANDEZ 406 "H" ST.S.A.TX.78220

EXHIBIT #1 (3)

PERMENENT RECORD CARD .NORTH TEXAS

UNIVERSITY, DENTON,TEXAS DEGREES:-

CERTIFICATES

NO: TITLE OF COURE SEM HRS GR PTS

07-12-1975-to 08-16-1975.

204 Americ Gov's 3 F

110 Bus Speaking 3 ss €¢ |
Acadamic Probation

CREDITS FOR SERV TRN 12 10

08-27-1975 To 12-20-1975

132 COMP & RHET 3 - © @
ANER GOV't 3 F 3
101 ELEM SPANISH 4 F 4
304 PERSUATION 3 3 B 9

ACADEMIC SUPENSION SPRING 1975
ABEL H.HERNANDEZ 406 "H" ST.S.A.TX.

78220

aovwoccsceo ao —lUch

COOKE COUNTY COLLEGE
GAINEVILLE, TEXAS SPRING 1976.
NO: TITLE OF COURE SEM HRS GR PTS
2023 ORAL COMMUNI 3 3 C 6
1133 PERSNL/GRTH 3 3 B 9
1023 DEV READING 3 2 A 12
1023 GRAM COMP 3 3 Cc 6
ABEL H. HERNANDEZ 406 "H"ST.S.A.TX.

78220

EXHIBIT # 1 (5)

BEE COUNTY COLLEGE

NO: TILTE OF COURSE SEM HRS GR PTS
301 US HIST BEFOR 1965 3 OW C
164 WEIGHT TRAINING 3 ee
351 AMER GOV'T a ae
302 READING STUDY SKILLS 3 C2
353 AMERI MINORITIES z * es
402 SPANISH 3 Cc 4

SCHOLASTIC PROBATION
172 WRESTING 3 B 1

SPING SEMESTER 1977

402 GENERAL BIOLOGY 3 D 4
302 US HIST AFTER 1865 [72
351 STATE GOV'T & FED. 3 ch
351 ADV SPANISH 3 e. 2

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ 406 "H":ST. S.A.TX.

78220

—_—-

| EXHIBIT # 1 (6)

ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
SAN ANTONIO,TEXAS ACADEMIC RECORD
SPRING SEMESTER 1978
NO: TITLE OF COURSE SEM HRS GR PTS
315 History og U.S. 3 - 23
308 Argument & Debat 3 » dD 3
600A Algebra 0 oe
-612B Spanish II Soe £2 6
ENFORCE SCHOLASTIC WITHDRAWAL
MUST PETITION TO RE-ENTER
PETITIONED ADMISSIONS COMMITTY-1/79
SPRING SEMESTER 1979
600 INTRO ALGEBRA 3 a
CONTINUED SCHOLASTIC PROBATION
SPRING SUMMER 1979
602A TOPICS CONTEMP 0O 7.5WF O
601A ENGLISH COMPOS 0 7.31P QO
601A ENGLISH COMPOS 3 > 2 2

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ 406 "H" ST. S.A.

TX. 78220

I AM

ORDER

A MEMBER OF

EXHIBT

THE ROSICRUCIAN

(1)

EXHIBIT 3

XHIBIT # (1)
INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE TRAINING

SCHOOL : P.O. BOX 4352

WASHINGTON D. C. 20012

SEPTEMBER 23 ,1981

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
- RE: ABEL H. HERNANDEZ
NO: 4036
The above name person is a graduate
of THE INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE TRAIN-
ING SCHOOL , having completed our Home
STUDY COURSE IN DETECTIVE TRAINING

with an average grade of 86 per cent

While enrolled as a student in our
SCHOOL , he fulfilled all responsibilities

to our entire satifaction . The student was

EXHIBIT #3 (2)

conscintious , painstaking and punctual in

the work prescribed

I found him industrious , careful in
fellowing instructions ,and eager both
to please our instructors and to learn
the maximum from the subject matter

furnished

From my experience in working with
the subject , I feel he will prove a
every satisfactory employee in any
position for which his education and
experience might qualify him andI ,
personally , will appreciate any

consideration shown to him

EXHIBT + 4 (1)

100-INFLUENTIALS THEY ARE THE ELITE
OF THE NATIONAL HISPANIC COMMUNITY.
BUT WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE ? AND WHAT

DO THEY WANT ?

ORGANIZATIONS . There are many
Hispanic organizations , but which
ones best represent the national
Hispanic community ? According to
the influentials , the MEXICAN LEGAL
DEFENSE FUND ( MALDEF) , WHICH first
opened its doors in 1968 ,is munber
one . Close on MALDEF'S heels is the
LEAGUE of UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZEN
(LULAC) , which dates back to 1929
Third place went to the WASHINGTON ,
D.C. based National Council of LA RAZA
,a social issues advancement group
Fourth plase belongs to the UNITED STATES
, which was begug at the close of world

war II. It is fellowed by fifth ranked

EXHIBIT # 4 (2)
UNITED STATES HISPANICS CHAMBER of
COMMERCE (USHCC) , sixth ranked LATIN
BUSINESS ASSOCIATION (LBA) , seventh
ranked Hispanic Asociation on Corporate
responsibilities ( HACEER) ., eight ranked
Camara de comercio Latina de Los Estados

Unidos (CAMACOL), and ninth rank Latin

American Manufacturers Asociation (LAMA )

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0915%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.