/usr/local/projects/usca/indexes/USCA-ALL.index Search the Opinions of the US Circuit Courts
skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Did you mean credit card fraud?

Your query "credit card fraud" returned 209 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted of mail fraud by virtue of his unauthorized practice of law. The gross amount of fees he received from his clients was used to calculate the loss caused by his fraud. We conclude and agree with defendant's contention that fees paid by those who received satisfactory services are not to be included in determining the measurement of loss from his fraudulent scheme. We conclude that imposing a two point upward adjustment for using a special skill in the commission of the offense was warranted. Defendant was sentenced pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to two concurrent prison terms of thirty six months each. He was ordered to pay $25. The issues presented for review are threefold: 1) whether the district court properly calculated the amount of loss caused by defendant's mail fraud for purposes of guideline § 2F1.1. We will affirm in part. Mail Fraud Arthur Maurello was admitted to the New Jersey State Bar in 1976. An ethics complaint was filed against him. Maurello was permanently disbarred by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
994 OPINION/ORDER
Charged along with more than a dozen other individuals in a 26 count indictment that was eventually redacted at trial to seven counts. To be followed by a three year term of supervised release. consolidated for sentencing before Judge Laken's offenses were Pauley. (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions on (a) the RICO conspiracy count. Laken and Black were indicted and tried on charges that they. Those coconspirators were to use part of the illegally gained moneys to fund their bribery payments to the union officials. The Pension Fund Fraud/Kickbacks Trial Laken and Black were tried in a 15 week trial in 2001 2002. Prior to its conclusion he entered into a plea agreement with the government. principal government witness was Jeffrey Pokross. Until he was arrested in 1996 and agreed to cooperate with the government. Pokross was a principal in DMN Capital Investments. The affairs of DMN Capital were overseen by Robert Lino. With Pokross's cooperation many conversations were recorded.
994 OPINION/ORDER
Charged along with more than a dozen other individuals in a 26 count indictment that was eventually redacted at trial to seven counts. To be followed by a three year term of supervised release. consolidated for sentencing before Judge Laken's offenses were Pauley. (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions on (a) the RICO conspiracy count. Laken and Black were indicted and tried on charges that they. Those coconspirators were to use part of the illegally gained moneys to fund their bribery payments to the union officials. The Pension Fund Fraud/Kickbacks Trial Laken and Black were tried in a 15 week trial in 2001 2002. Prior to its conclusion he entered into a plea agreement with the government. principal government witness was Jeffrey Pokross. Until he was arrested in 1996 and agreed to cooperate with the government. Pokross was a principal in DMN Capital Investments. The affairs of DMN Capital were overseen by Robert Lino. With Pokross's cooperation many conversations were recorded.
985 OPINION/ORDER
928 OPINION/ORDER
I The facts of this case were aptly set forth by the magistrate judge in his summary judgment order: In August 2002. These cards were subsequently issued to her and she was able to intercept them and use them without her husband's knowledge. MacDermid was on a
877 OPINION/ORDER
Itobore Oshobe is a Nigerian citizen living in the United States. Oshobe kept and used some of the items that were delivered to him. Says he re packaged and shipped most of the items to an individual named Ade Taiwo in Nigeria. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Oshobe and his roommates were eventually indicted. Oshobe and one roommate were tried on a sixteen count indictment including charges of credit card fraud. Oshobe was convicted while his roommate was acquitted. Payment was to be via Master Card. Were also residents at that address.(1)
866 UNITED STATES V. DABBS (2/6/1998, NO. 95-2914)

PST mailed certificates at random to prospective customers declaring that the recipient was eligible to receive one of four allegedly valuable awards. The merchant bank is only entitled to recoup its loss from the business. Lacks sufficient funds or is no longer a functioning enterprise. Studies have shown that telemarketing companies generate a substantially greater risk of charge backs. When the inspector called a third time to tell her that Barnett had discovered the scheme and advised him that factoring was illegal. Susan Dabbs falsely told the inspector that they were not violating the law and instructed the inspector to
866 UNITED STATES V. DABBS (2/6/1998, NO. 95-2914)

PST mailed certificates at random to prospective customers declaring that the recipient was eligible to receive one of four allegedly valuable awards. The merchant bank is only entitled to recoup its loss from the business. Lacks sufficient funds or is no longer a functioning enterprise. Studies have shown that telemarketing companies generate a substantially greater risk of charge backs. When the inspector called a third time to tell her that Barnett had discovered the scheme and advised him that factoring was illegal. Susan Dabbs falsely told the inspector that they were not violating the law and instructed the inspector to
846 OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that it was obtained
846 OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that it was obtained
843 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 1252. Replace footnote 3 with the following: Defendant argues that California does not allow lawyers to reveal their clients' secrets under any circumstances and that the only option for a California lawyer in Wilson's position is to resign. 974 F.2d at 129 (
843 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 1252. Replace footnote 3 with the following: Defendant argues that California does not allow lawyers to reveal their clients' secrets under any circumstances and that the only option for a California lawyer in Wilson's position is to resign. 974 F.2d at 129 (
837 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Defendant Arthur Turcks was convicted on each count of a nineteen count indictment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The restitution ordered by the district court was not supported by the necessary fact finding as required by United States v. I Arthur Turcks and co defendant Earl Warfield were co owners of the Lansdowne Video Store in Philadelphia. Lost or stolen credit cards were fraudulently used to complete purported retail sales. Only Turcks and Warfield had access to the store's credit card processing machines and at least one of them was present whenever the store was open. That Turcks had probably signed four of the invalid credit card sales slips which were charged to four separate credit card accounts. Bank records demonstrated that numerous transactions initiated at Lansdowne Video were rejected with instructions to call the bank but no calls were ever made. Cards were
829 OPINION/ORDER
Most of the credit cards involved in the conspiracy were never recovered. Mei contends that the method used by the district court to calculate 2 No. 01 2559 the loss was not reasonably reliable. Just after Mei was released from federal custody in Ohio after serving time for attempted credit card fraud (his second credit card fraud related federal conviction. The cards did not work and were confiscated. Again the cards did not work and were confiscated. The cards were rejected and confiscated. Mei was trafficking counterfeit cards to persons operating in Ohio. Telling the salesperson that they were starting an internet business. Mei was indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud. Chan were named in the same indictment as co conspirators. Persons B and C later told the government that the object of the scheme was simply to steal as much as possible by using each card up to its credit limit or until it no longer functioned. Sentences for fraud crimes are based in part on the amount of financial loss.
829 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Page 8. Was on brief for appellees. Was indicted on one count of using two unauthorized access devices. Defendant was found guilty. She was sentenced to eleven months incarceration. We have consolidated them to five for purposes of our review. 2 2 whether defendant's conviction was due in part to the ineffective assistance of counsel. (5) whether there was error in applying the sentencing guidelines. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Our standard of review is firmly established: We assess the sufficiency of the evidence as a whole. With a view to whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is. There are four essential elements of the crime for which defendant was convicted: (1) that the two Discover credit cards specified in the indictment were
826 OPINION/ORDER
Fully supports the district court's findings and conclusions that (1) Cunag was not lawfully present in the hotel room because he procured it through fraud. The first note was written on the same page as a photocopy of Apan's credit The hotel registry denotes that he checked in on November 13. These discrepant facts do not affect the outcome of this appeal. 2 Cunag testified that the photo on the identification was removed from another identification card and that he did not know the individual pictured. 1 UNITED STATES v. It was addressed to Miguel Hernandez from P. Apan and reads: Attached herein is a copy of my Mastercard as requested for use of your office. CA Note: This is my personal card. We will issue you a corporate one next day. The second note was also addressed to Hernandez from P. Apan and reads: Attached herewith is a copy of my state CA I.D. for your perusal. I will be responsible & hereby authorize
803 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the District Court committed plain error in accepting defendant Dante Dixon's guilty plea by overstating to Dixon. He might have chosen to plead not guilty and take his chances at trial. Because Dixon has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the overstated sentence. We conclude that he is not entitled to plain error relief. Dixon was charged in a criminal complaint with conspiring to engage in credit card fraud. Dixon was informed that he faced a maximum penalty of 10 years. Assuming that he did not have a prior federal conviction for credit card fraud. Dixon was told that he faced a maximum penalty of 20 years. One Information was filed in the District of New Jersey. The second was filed in the Southern District of New York and transferred to the District of New Jersey under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The plea agreement provided that the maximum statutory term Dixon faced with respect to each count was twenty years' imprisonment.
803 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellee. Claimed that the seizure was unconstitutional. Hamie was convicted of eleven counts involving credit card fraud. He renews his claim that the evidence was seized unlawfully and also challenges remarks made during the prosecution's closing argument. We conclude that there was no error either in admitting the evidence seized or in overruling Hamie's objections to the prosecutor's argument. I. Background Federal agents were investigating both Hamie and his roommate. Although it was not clear whether the room belonged to Hamie or El Zein. Also present were El Zein's address book and Hamie's student organizer. When the briefcase was partially opened. The box was inscribed with the insignia of American Express. The background were precisely the same in the identification photos. The government stated that there was
800 OPINION/ORDER
As he should have.1 Instead. He stated that he was not working and As Dickerson recognizes. It is a crime for a person to withhold or falsify information about his work status.
794 OPINION/ORDER
HAMER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Brenda Joyce Hamer was convicted after a jury trial on six counts of bank fraud. When Hamer was attempting another wire transfer. Who asked whether she was attempting to telegraph money and if she was aware of the existence of a telephone account in her name in Dillon. Douglas told the validator that she was not attempting to wire money and had not authorized any telephone service in Dillon.
774 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Before us is a criminal appeal from two defendants. Who were convicted of credit card fraud. The district judge should have decreased her sentence because she only played a minimal role in the criminal endeavor and the entire loss was not reasonably foreseeable to her. Defendant Akinkoye claims that the enhancement for abuse of trust was not warranted because he was not in a position of trust. That a two level increase for obstruction of justice was not warranted because the statements he made had no effect on the prosecution of his case. The district court's decisions are in order and we therefore affirm. I. Akinkoye was a real estate agent employed by Re/Max real estate agency and worked in its Burtonsville. To the extent that the clients' mail was delivered into secured places such as inside the home or in a locked mailbox Akinkoye would access the mail by using the keys to the home provided by the clients. 000.1 None of the clients was aware that their names. Information and property were being used fraudulently.
772 OPINION/ORDER
In determining whether the trial court should have stricken allegedly prejudicial surplusage from the superceding indictment. Appellant argues that her due process rights were violated by the district court's submission to the jury of these sentencing allegations and by its admission
of summary exhibits. We will only disturb the district court's ruling if we have
772 OPINION/ORDER
The detailed facts are set out in the decision of the district court denying motions to suppress. Defendant Li Chi Cheong was granted leave to appeal from denial of his motion to suppress on two grounds: lack of probable cause to arrest. The district court did not err in holding there was probable cause to arrest Li. He was experienced in credit card fraud and had been trained by the Secret Service in identification of fraudulent cards. He was assigned to the access device fraud squad in the Miami office of the Secret Service. Who confirmed that there was an organized ring of Asian males victimizing local stores with fraudulent credit cards. On January 28 Cachinero received a call stating that there were four Asian men in the Saks store at Bal Harbor. Some of which were being rejected. He was shown a videotape of them. The two men at the other counter were making large purchases with credit cards. Cachinero thought the behavior of the four individuals was suspicious. Cachinero was advised by an off duty policeman at the mall that four Asian men were making large purchases in another store.
772 USA V. PINNICK SHANNON
769 UNITED STATES V. WAI-KEUNG

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. The detailed facts are set out in the decision of the district court denying motions to suppress. Need not be repeated here.<p> Defendant Li Chi Cheong was granted leave to appeal from denial of his motion to suppress on two grounds: lack of probable cause to arrest. The taking of his statement allegedly in violation of <i>Miranda.</i><p> The district court did not err in holding there was probable cause to arrest Li. He was experienced in credit card fraud and had been trained by the Secret Service in identification of fraudulent cards. He was assigned to the access device fraud squad in the Miami office of the Secret Service.<p> In early January 1993 Cachinero learned of an investigation in West Palm Beach of Asian males posing as rich businessmen and purchasing high end items with fraudulent credit cards. Who confirmed that there was an organized ring of Asian males victimizing local stores with fraudulent credit cards.<p> On January 28 Cachinero received a call stating that there were four Asian men in the Saks store at Bal Harbor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="769"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/94-4344.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WAI-KEUNG<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The detailed facts are set out in the decision of the district court denying motions to suppress. Need not be repeated here.<p> Defendant Li Chi Cheong was granted leave to appeal from denial of his motion to suppress on two grounds: lack of probable cause to arrest. The taking of his statement allegedly in violation of <i>Miranda.</i><p> The district court did not err in holding there was probable cause to arrest Li. He was experienced in credit card fraud and had been trained by the Secret Service in identification of fraudulent cards. He was assigned to the access device fraud squad in the Miami office of the Secret Service.<p> In early January 1993 Cachinero learned of an investigation in West Palm Beach of Asian males posing as rich businessmen and purchasing high end items with fraudulent credit cards. Who confirmed that there was an organized ring of Asian males victimizing local stores with fraudulent credit cards.<p> On January 28 Cachinero received a call stating that there were four Asian men in the Saks store at Bal Harbor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/127A776B82014F1688256EB300573041/$file/0350067.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The record contains ample and compelling evidence that Cunag was not lawfully present in the hotel room because he procured it through fraud. The first note was written on the same page as a photocopy of Apan's credit card. It was addressed to Miguel Hernandez from P. Apan and reads: Attached herein is a copy of my Mastercard as requested for use of your office. These discrepant facts do not affect the outcome of this appeal. 2 Cunag testified that the photo on the identification was removed from another identification card. CA Note: This is my personal card. We will issue you a corporate one next day. The second note was also addressed to Hernandez from P. Apan and reads: Attached herewith is a copy of my state CA I.D. for your perusal. I will be responsible & hereby authorize </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974129.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Aruna Matai and Sandeep Matai were convicted of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud. Included in that verdict was a special verdict of forfeiture of $11. Evidence introduced at the trial showed that stolen credit cards were presented and used at the clothing stores owned and operated by 2 the appellants between July 1993 and July 1994. The deposit slips from the stolen credit cards were then commingled with the deposits of other cash and checks received at the Matais' stores. This clothing was then charged to the stolen credit cards. The amount charged to the stolen credit cards was generally higher than the value of the clothing given to the credit card thieves as their </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-2211.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BALD (1/14/1998, NO. 96-2211)<BR></A><BR> Facts</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> This case involves an employee who was entrusted with the credit cards of her employer. Defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit credit card and bank fraud. (2) checks which were cashed for. 727.53) was erroneous because it included $35. 786.54 in merchandise that the Defendants returned to merchants before the wrongdoing was detected.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-2211.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BALD (1/14/1998, NO. 96-2211)<BR></A><BR> Facts</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> This case involves an employee who was entrusted with the credit cards of her employer. Defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit credit card and bank fraud. (2) checks which were cashed for. 727.53) was erroneous because it included $35. 786.54 in merchandise that the Defendants returned to merchants before the wrongdoing was detected.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/062909P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hartstein's sentence was based on a finding by the district court that her fraud involved a loss amount in excess of $2.8 million and over 180 victims. Because additional factfinding is required as to the loss amount and number of victims. Hartstein's scheme expanded to the point where she was soliciting new loans to pay the principal on old loans in whole or in part or to purchase airline tickets to appease her prior lenders. The stranded traveler was a minor. Hartstein characterizes her activities as borrowing that spiraled out of control in which some lenders were the victims of fraud and other lenders were friends or acquaintances who gave or loaned her money apart from any fraud. The probation office alleged that there were over 180 victims with a combined total amount of loans and unauthorized charges over $2.8 million. There was a two level increase for the unauthorized use of a means of identification. Hartstein had no criminal history points and was in criminal history category I. The PSR's resultant advisory Guidelines range was 168 210 months' imprisonment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/974399P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Comstock was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment for state law convictions. The court determined that the total amount of loss attributable to the federal fraud offenses was $35. Comstock's only argument on appeal is that the district court erred in using the 1995 version of section 5G1.3(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines to deny his request for concurrent sentences. Which was in effect at the time Comstock committed his offenses. Because his sentence under the 1995 Guidelines is harsher than that which he would have received under the 1993 Guidelines. So the then current version of the Guidelines was actually the November 1. This oversight is immaterial for purposes of this appeal because § 5G1.3 was the same in both the 1995 and 1997 versions of the Guidelines. With USSG § 5G1.3 (1997). 3 1 is dependent upon his contention that under the 1993 version of section 5G1.3 at least part of his sentence would be ordered to run concurrently. We also are required by the statute to give </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6011.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants were apprehended with two others during an attempt to purchase merchandise with counterfeit or altered credit cards. Appellants (1) The appeals have not been consolidated. The parties stipulated the actual loss in this case was $35. The Agent added that although no manufacturing equipment or devices to encode false magnetic security strips on credit cards were found in the Appellants' possession. No enhanced card itself was introduced. The Court is authorized under Guideline 2B1.1 to proceed on the basis of the actual credit limit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDB2E708F324431F88256FEA000AA38D/$file/0330365.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The store clerk was able to tell the police that Caymen had tried to buy a computer from one of their competitors. Caymen had first tried to use a credit card that was rejected. It was connected to a desktop tower. Which did not have its own monitor (evidently he used the laptop as its monitor). Both computers were connected to a high speed DSL internet connection. Caymen was present during the search. He claimed that he had no idea what the police were talking about when they said that the laptop had been purchased with someone else's credit card. Printed on those receipts was yet another credit card number that did not belong to Caymen. Caymen claimed not to know how this could have happened. He specifically requested that the police search the laptop's hard drive because he didn't </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19938706.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David Scalise were each indicted on a 31 count indictment. The remaining defendants were convicted after a jury trial on all 31 counts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We will vacate and remand for resentencing. 55 F.3d 572 (11th Cir.1995).1 We will affirm the judgments and sentences imposed by the district court in all other respects. McKnight was a Page. Were telemarketers who worked under her direction. Scalise were among the telemarketers that they hired. Are you over 21 years of age? Have you ever been bankrupt. How long have you worked there? ... What is your combined monthly income? Set out the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov95/93-8706.opa.html">PAGE V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Page v. David Scalise were each indicted on a 31 count indictment. The remaining defendants were convicted after a jury trial on all 31 counts. Withdrawal from conspiracy.<p> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov95/93-8706.opa.html">PAGE V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Page v. David Scalise were each indicted on a 31 count indictment. The remaining defendants were convicted after a jury trial on all 31 counts. Withdrawal from conspiracy.<p> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="706"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/044018P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Oates agreed he was guilty of credit card fraud and one count of identity theft. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(c)(1)(B) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1644.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. The question is one of first impression at the federal appellate level. When all is said and done. Police officers responded to the shopping plaza where the store was located. A total of twenty two unauthorized credit cards were found in the companion's wallet. The companion pleaded guilty and his case is not now before us. We will uphold a refusal to suppress evidence as long as the refusal is supported by some reasonable view of the record. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994125.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Lynell Bassfield was convicted of two counts of mail fraud. He was sentenced to a term of twenty four months' imprisonment on each count. Alleging there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the bank fraud and social security fraud and that the district court erred by denying him a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility. Bassfield alleges the evidence was insufficient to show that he used a fraudulently obtained credit card to make cash withdraws at the Citizen Bank and Trust automated teller machine in Blackstone. There is substantial evidence to support it. The district court was in the unique position of examining photographs introduced into evidence that were made from surveillance video tapes of the bank's ATM. All ten ATM transactions charged were for the same amount and all were at the same ATM. It is also relevant that Bassfield was found guilty of fraudulently obtaining the credit card used at the ATM through a mail in application. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1732p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They assert that the civil rights conviction is based on a vague and undefined theory that cannot support a criminal conviction. That the only mailings involved were not sufficiently connected to the fraudulent scheme to bring it within the federal mail fraud statute. Because none of the mailings contemplated in the conspiracy was undertaken </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1732p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They assert that the civil rights conviction is based on a vague and undefined theory that cannot support a criminal conviction. That the only mailings involved were not sufficiently connected to the fraudulent scheme to bring it within the federal mail fraud statute. Because none of the mailings contemplated in the conspiracy was undertaken </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615691.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Agbai argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. Agbai contends his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Agbai was 2 assisted in his bank fraud and credit card schemes by Kevin Tate. Agbai and Tate were arrested after Agbai attempted to purchase computer equipment using a stolen credit card and a fake driver's license. Tate pled guilty to one count of bank fraud and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. (4) he claimed that the restitution total was too high because some of the credit card purchases were lawful. Should not have received a role enhancement. Agbai asserted that the total offense level should have been 10. Agbai noted that he had a virtually spotless criminal history before coming to Atlanta and that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1334.htm">99-1334 -- U.S. V. THOMAS -- 07/07/2000<BR></A><BR> Mark Charles Thomas was arrested and indicted on a charge of credit card fraud. He was then incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2475.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dilday</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1922.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Casner & Edwards was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for the United States. London Egemonye was indicted in 1993 under a multi count indictment charging him and others with conspiracy and other offenses relating to the possession and use of other people's credit cards. 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(2)(trafficking. He now appeals from his sentence arguing that it is flawed by the government's manipulation of sentencing factors and by an improper computation of loss. Because there was no trial. Who was cooperating with authorities. The aggregate limits on the cards in the two transactions were $21. Several of the cards were used to obtain advances from banks. Egemonye was arrested immediately thereafter. The district court increased the base offense level of 6 by 8 additional levels because the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/640154935180921A88256E0C00754DD0/$file/0250482.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Fatima Peyton was tried and convicted of access device fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(1) and (2) and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for her role in an identity theft ring. Peyton was resentenced to 30 months. Peyton was arrested by U.S. Was tried by a jury. Was charged as a co defendant.1 The evidence established that in 1999 Peyton worked as a supervisor for the United States Postal Service in San Diego. The names and social security numbers of six naval officers were used to apply for American Express credit cards that were to be delivLucas pled guilty on July 26. To the eight remaining counts and was sentenced to 15 months in custody. 1 UNITED STATES v. Eleven other credit card applications were made over the phone. A jury found Peyton guilty on all eight counts of access device fraud for an accountable loss that was greater than $12. The tires were found on Peyton's car. The installation order was placed by a person identified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953453P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cotroneo was serving two concurrent terms of supervised release on convictions for credit card fraud and escape. The District Court should have imposed concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. Cotroneo pled guilty to credit card fraud and was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to twenty four months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Cotroneo pled guilty to escape and was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee to fifteen months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. In that he: The sentence for the escape conviction was imposed concurrently with the sentence In October 1994. Agreed to its consolidation with the hearing on the Arkansas term A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0224p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the district court's loss calculation was not clearly erroneous. Became suspicious that Arzu was engaged in fraud and alerted the police. Mickens and Young were staying. All of the cards were encoded with the account information of actual Discover customers. The commentary to § 2B1.1 says that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0216n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence in a criminal case. (3) that the court unconstitutionally enhanced the defendant's sentence on the basis of a fact that was not found by a jury. We are satisfied that the district court's evidentiary determinations did not constitute reversible error. Because the defendant admitted the fact that was used to enhance his sentence. There was no violation here of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Was indicted on charges that included conspiracy to commit credit card fraud. A secret service agent testified that three fraudulently re encoded credit cards were on Mr. Cowan's person at the time of his arrest and that a re encoding device was found with related computer equipment in Cowan's car. He denied that the re encoding device had been in No. 04 5622 Page 3 his car and claimed to have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6384.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. (1) This matter is submitted on the briefs by this court's own motion. Gordon responds that her challenge to the amount of restitution is not covered by her waiver of appellate rights and that. If it is. That is Mastercard XXXX XXXX XXXX 9512. The loss associated with this count was $7. Gordon fraudulently used credit cards belonging to other persons.(2) The total loss resulting from the count of conviction and the other incidents was $68. Gordon was hired to be a caretaker for two elderly women who subsequently died. The Scope of the Waiver of Appellate Rights Waivers of appellate rights are generally enforceable. We must determine whether such review is precluded by the waiver. If the appeal is within the scope of the waiver. Plea agreements are governed by contract principles. One key principle is the doctrine of contra proferentem. That ambiguities in agreements are to be construed against the drafter. Gordon's plea agreement contains the following waiver of appellate rights: Defendant understands that a sentencing guideline range for her case will be determined by the Court under the guidelines issued by the U.S. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/031838P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Smith was a drug user who financed his addiction by committing theft crimes and credit card fraud. Smith was arrested in Iowa City for trading drugs for cars. Smith was arrested in Coralville. Smith knew he could still be prosecuted on federal charges even though he was cooperating. He understood if federal charges were filed against him. Smith was hospitalized and. Telling the cashier he was the woman's stepfather. The Application Notes explain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1041p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that the evidence was obtained lawfully pursuant to Terry v. We will affirm. The convertible top was down. Both occupants were visible. When Officers Crapello and Polizzi were approximately eight feet from the car. Edwards was arrested and indicted for possession and use of counterfeit credit cards. 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a). A. Terry Analysis The district court held that Officer Crapello's actions in opening the envelope without a warrant were justified under Terry. A Terry stop is permissible when the police have a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that a crime has been committed. He argues that both the subsequent Terry protective pat down and the ultimate search of the envelope were unlawful. 1. Edwards argues that the police had no reason to believe he was armed and dangerous. Where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual.... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/995151.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Y oula was sentenced to thirty three months imprisonment. We are not persuaded. Moe purported to have a cousin who worked for MBNA. Youla and Mara were to pay Moe $20. Satisfied that the cards were activated. The two were to return to Wilmington the next day with $20. Moe then reported the theft to MBNA whereupon the card was immediately deactivated. Suspecting that Moe was involved with law enforcement. All claiming that their car ds were lost or stolen. MBNA determined that most of the calls were fraudulent. One replacement card was sent to Eric W ashington. This card was never activated after MBNA deter mined that the account was fraudulent. A total of $501 was withdrawn or spent on the credit accounts. The District Court entered into a lengthy colloquy with Youla to ensure that he understood the charge to which he was pleading guilty. To ensure that the plea was being entered voluntarily. Satisfied that Youla understood his Constitutional rights and that his decision to plead guilty was knowing and 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1281.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sullivan was required to forfeit sixty (60) days of good time credits. 000 in punitive damages from each defendant.1 Before the defendants were served. Noting that its ruling did not determine whether the complaint was otherwise sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The defendants were served with Sullivan's complaint.2 1. Although the complaint is somewhat ambiguous. Sullivan's subsequent filings indicate that his damages claim is based solely on his confinement in administrative segregation. 2. The motion was supported by affidavits from defendants Malone and Gatewood and numerous documents from the disciplinary proceeding. The parties' respective filings and Sullivan's verified complaint indicate that the following facts are undisputed. Sullivan is serving a 12 20 year sentence for armed assault. Sullivan was removed from the general population at M.C.I. He was told that he was being placed on pending investigation status due to claims concerning the fraudulent use of a credit card. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1547.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Colucci was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. The district court stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI5NzQtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2974-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of credit card fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 and sentenced principally to a term of probation. Aspinall contends primarily that she (a) was denied due process and the right of confrontation by the admission of hearsay evidence at her probation revocation hearing. (b) was denied due process by reason of an ex parte conversation between her probation officer and the district judge prior to that hearing. Was unreasonably long. we affirm. 20 I. Aspinall was sentenced on August 27. Aspinall was required. It was not binding on the district court. The warrant was issued. An evidentiary hearing was convened on February 26. The district court stated that it had received a visit that morning from Febus with respect to a matter that was not a charge in the Petition and which would not affect the court's consideration of the charges in the Petition. That in November she stated that she was working as an employee of a company called Shard Consulting ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974029.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. She claims that the district court should have suppressed evidence resulting from a search of her room because the search warrant was facially insufficient. She contends that she was interviewed by a federal agent in violation of the Sixth Amendment and that her statements in that interview must be suppressed. Detective Sandra Vuncannon was placed in charge of the case. The text of the affidavit supporting the search warrant read as follows: The High Point Police Department was contacted by High Point Orthopedic and Sport Medicine. 27263 which is described as a single story. This room is to contain documents pertaining to the crime of credit card fraud. On August 28 she was arraigned in state court. A public defender was appointed to represent her. Agent Nick Mentavlos of the Secret Service and another federal agent interviewed Montgomery while she was in state custody. That Montgomery's counsel was neither present nor informed about the interview. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034818.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MUHAMMED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was arrested in February 2003 after an investigation into false passport applications he had submitted. His apartment was broken into by an unknown person. Two search warrants were executed on Muhammed's luggage in the storage unit. Of the access devices were credit card account numbers listed in seven notebooks (or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974820.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 4820 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: At issue in this case is whether agents of the United States Secret Service had probable cause to search Gerald Kinnison's car after they arrested him for credit card fraud. Secret service agents arrested Kinnison while he was visiting his probation officer at the United States Court House Annex in Richmond. Special agent Gerard Gaughran seized the car and parked it in a parking garage under the building in which the Secret Service field office is located. Kinnison was then indicted on charges of mail fraud. He filed a motion to suppress the gun found in the trunk of his car as the fruit of an illegal search and seizure.* The district court found that the search warrant for the car was supported by probable cause and denied the motion. A district court's determination of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment is an issue of law that this court reviews de novo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr97/96-4526.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. We affirm.<p> I.<p> <p> When Secret Service Special Agent Roberto Villanueva learned that Antonio Gonzalez was in the market to sell stolen and counterfeit credit cards. Special Agent Villanueva expressed an interest in doing business and purchased one counterfeit card and one stolen to verify that they were usable. Secret Service agents confirmed that the available credit on nine of these cards was approximately $250. Under which a defendant's base offense level is increased relative to the financial loss associated with the crime. A defendant sentenced under section 2F1.1 is subject to an offense level increase based on the greater of: (1) the actual loss associated with a crime. Reasoning that there is insufficient evidence of intended loss and no actual loss. As the credit cards were sold to the government. We disagree.<p> The district court's estimate of the intended loss from the conspiracy was not clear error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2215.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cicilline was on brief for appellant. Appellant Hakeem Fahm was sentenced to a twenty month prison term in September 1992. We deny Fahm's appeal from the original sentence and conclude that the district court was without juris diction to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr97/96-4526.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. We affirm.<p> I.<p> <p> When Secret Service Special Agent Roberto Villanueva learned that Antonio Gonzalez was in the market to sell stolen and counterfeit credit cards. Special Agent Villanueva expressed an interest in doing business and purchased one counterfeit card and one stolen to verify that they were usable. Secret Service agents confirmed that the available credit on nine of these cards was approximately $250. Under which a defendant's base offense level is increased relative to the financial loss associated with the crime. A defendant sentenced under section 2F1.1 is subject to an offense level increase based on the greater of: (1) the actual loss associated with a crime. Reasoning that there is insufficient evidence of intended loss and no actual loss. As the credit cards were sold to the government. We disagree.<p> The district court's estimate of the intended loss from the conspiracy was not clear error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001943.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse in part and affirm in part. The circumstances leading to Walker's arrest and conviction are as follows:1 Walker arrived in the Virgin Islands from his home in Atlanta. Walker and Gunn were thereafter charged with credit card fraud and possession of stolen property. 1. Although the jurors may have been amused by Walker's testimony. They were not persuaded by it. The jury was apparently more impressed by the proof of Walker's guilt than by his credibility. He was convicted on all counts. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.S 3731. We review the sentence that was imposed for abuse of discretion inasmuch as it did not exceed the statutory limits of the applicable statute. Walker was convicted of two counts of violating 14 V.I.C. The Appellate Division reasoned that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984102.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 4102 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He maintains that the district court plainly erred by including as relevant conduct in the loss determination offenses which were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994783.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc The appellant's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was submitted to this Court. As the panel considered the petition for rehearing and is of the opinion that it should be denied. IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the slip opinion is modified as follows: on page 7. The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/981245P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is unlawful to intentionally deceive by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/012731P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who suspected that Vanhorn was unlawfully using Harrell's name and social security number to obtain credit cards through the mail. This search produced additional evidence of the Harrell credit card fraud and indicated that Vanhorn was also using numerous other post office boxes under various names. The Postal Service's investigation revealed that Vanhorn was using post office boxes in the names of several fictitious businesses and nonexistent employees to obtain unemployment benefits through the mail. The government did not introduce any evidence that was seized during the execution of the state search warrant at the motel room. Concluding that the proffered evidence was cumulative. The court also held a revocation of 3 supervised release proceeding because Vanhorn had committed the current offenses while he was on supervised release for a 1996 conviction. The judicially created remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is the exclusion of evidence from the prosecutor's case in chief. We will affirm an order denying a motion to suppress unless the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974275.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. For which he was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. Addressing whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. Yancey was named in a three count indictment in July 1996 charging him with two counts of credit card fraud. Yancey was found guilty of the two counts of credit card fraud and not guilty of using a false social security number. Representatives of both banks testified that the applications were submitted in the name of Lee J. A conviction must be affirmed if there is substantial evidence. Circumstantial and direct evidence are both considered. The government is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences. We find that the evidence was sufficient to support Yancey's convictions. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1772.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sentence was imposed on July 8. We note that appellant's appendix includes many documents which were not filed in the district court including transcripts of testimony before the grand jury and are. Were secretly indicted with five counts of fraudulent use of access devices.2 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(2). Appellant was arrested on October 20. He was carrying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316121.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Auguste was added to the accounts as a secondary cardholder and a change of address was requested in order for her to get a card. It found that she was entitled to a two level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The Sentencing Commission 4 provided two examples of conduct where the two level enhancement applies and two examples where it is inapplicable. There is no caselaw that addresses this scenario. Yet the lack of relevant application notes and caselaw1 is of no moment. What matters is the plain language of § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C)(i). A court must apply a two level enhancement if an offense involved </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021986.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ruling that Johnson failed to establish either through direct evidence or a McDonnell Douglas prima facie case that Toys </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/043069P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the state PCR case is still pending. Maghee's direct appeal of the credit card fraud conviction was dismissed as frivolous. Which was affirmed. While state PCR proceedings are pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). State PCR proceedings are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/95-8557.man.html">UBOH V. RENO (5/18/1998, NO. 95-8557)<BR></A><BR> When the causes of action alleged in the complaint accrued and whether these claims are time barred. The following facts as alleged in the complaint are undisputed: In 1992. The application for the wiretap was based in part on affidavits provided by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Uboh subsequently was indicted. Uboh was also indicted on three counts related to the importation of narcotics. Uboh also was the sole defendant denied bond. That the district court denied him bond solely due to Gordon's assertion that Uboh was involved in illegal drug activity.</P> <P> The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the claims were time barred. The federal defendants were entitled either to absolute or qualified immunity. The allegations were insufficient to state a constitutional violation. The court reasoned that the statute of limitations for a <EM>Bivens</EM> claim was analogous to Georgia's two year personal injury statute of limitations and that. When his bond was denied on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/281EFBD7723969BA88256E62007F5233/$file/0250664.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was not Bautista's counterfeiting operation that led the police to his motel room. It was the credit card used to reserve the room. Upon being informed that the card was stolen. Bautista was apprehended away from the motel. BAUTISTA 3785 Bautista was indicted for manufacturing counterfeit currency. Both motions were denied and Bautista entered a conditional guilty plea. We must now determine whether a registered occupant of a motel room retains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the face of an unconfirmed report that a stolen credit card number was used to reserve the room. The police officer's entry into the motel room was a warrantless intrusion. Which was not salvaged by Mrs. Was nevertheless involuntary. Because Bautista was not evicted from his motel room by the manager. Because the entry was not supported by probable cause. Because it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to determine that Bautista's testimony was not credible. California was reserved in Bautista's name. Was for six nights and listed Bautista as the sole guest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/95-8557.man.html">UBOH V. RENO (5/18/1998, NO. 95-8557)<BR></A><BR> When the causes of action alleged in the complaint accrued and whether these claims are time barred. The following facts as alleged in the complaint are undisputed: In 1992. The application for the wiretap was based in part on affidavits provided by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Uboh subsequently was indicted. Uboh was also indicted on three counts related to the importation of narcotics. Uboh also was the sole defendant denied bond. That the district court denied him bond solely due to Gordon's assertion that Uboh was involved in illegal drug activity.</P> <P> The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the claims were time barred. The federal defendants were entitled either to absolute or qualified immunity. The allegations were insufficient to state a constitutional violation. The court reasoned that the statute of limitations for a <EM>Bivens</EM> claim was analogous to Georgia's two year personal injury statute of limitations and that. When his bond was denied on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1306.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984539.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 4539 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Barton was a sales representative for a cellular telephone company in Roanoke. One of her customers was Patrick Hairston. Was acquainted with Robert Dillard. Dillard usually were together when they conducted the fraudulent transactions. Barton admitted engaging in the fraudulent conduct but claimed that her participation was the product of duress. Her customer files were stolen from the locked trunk of her vehicle when she left it at P&S Automotive for repairs. She was contacted on the telephone by a man who said he had Barton's customer files and needed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945240.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: This appeal is from a judgment of conviction entered on October 24. Cannot be extended to reach the conduct for which he was convicted. reverse. BACKGROUND Morris was indicted in July 1993 under the Credit Card Fraud Act. An ESN is an eight digit number that is programmed onto a microchip in an individual phone and is designed to identify permanently the instrument just as a vehicle identification number identifies an automobile. If the call is local. Local carriers have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-5240.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MORRIS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal is from a judgment of conviction entered on October 24. Cannot be extended to reach the conduct for which he was convicted. We reverse.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Morris was indicted in July 1993 under the Credit Card Fraud Act. The phone had been altered so that its electronic serial number ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-5240.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MORRIS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal is from a judgment of conviction entered on October 24. Cannot be extended to reach the conduct for which he was convicted. We reverse.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Morris was indicted in July 1993 under the Credit Card Fraud Act. The phone had been altered so that its electronic serial number ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/062870P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McIntosh and two other individuals were indicted by a federal grand jury on January 5. McIntosh was appointed new counsel prior to his sentencing date and filed several objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). A hearing was held on these objections prior to his sentencing on July 7. As the PSR recommended a higher total offense level based upon these factors than what McIntosh contended was a correct calculation. The district court was required to impose a minimum sentence of two years on the aggravated identity theft count. The district court combined the loss amount McIntosh claimed was an accurate measure of loss from the 2 credit card fraud with the amount of loss listed in the PSR that was attributed to the check fraud scheme. The check fraud scheme was uncharged conduct attributed to McIntosh. The district court noted that there was a clear connection between the two fraud schemes through the people that were involved and the fact that both schemes operated under an intention to obtain money and property through fraud. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/985526.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will remand for a reduction of the amount assessed. Defendant Taiwo Adeshola Akande was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment and directed to pay restitution of $83. Defendant was liable as a co conspirator under a separate provision in the statute. She stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/99-2214.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. VENSKE (7/12/2002, NO. 99-2214)<BR></A><BR> Because we conclude that the court erred in sentencing William and Chantal on a count charging a multiple object conspiracy without determining beyond a reasonable doubt which offense was the object of the conspiracy. We affirm the convictions and sentences of Higgins and Venske. </SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/99-2214.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. VENSKE (7/12/2002, NO. 99-2214)<BR></A><BR> Because we conclude that the court erred in sentencing William and Chantal on a count charging a multiple object conspiracy without determining beyond a reasonable doubt which offense was the object of the conspiracy. We affirm the convictions and sentences of Higgins and Venske. </SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2868.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court also denied Egwaoje's request for a continuance (which he had argued was necessary in order for him to prepare to act as his own advocate) and the trial commenced as scheduled. (3) that his pro se representation resulted in a trial so lacking in fundamental fairness that he was denied due process of law. It was a lucrative venture for Egwaoje. While Egwaoje's summer may have been profitable. It was not endless. Because Goodman had been unable to attend the status hearing (another attorney was filling in for him). May have to be adjusted slightly. Informed the court that he didn't have the discovery he needed to predict Egwaoje's criminal history category accurately. The court tried to explain to Egwaoje that he needed more time so that he could make an informed plea decision: The truth of the matter is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1349.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. 8 (1st Cir. 2000).</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0093n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That therefore the court was not justified in applying the two level enhancement. A factual finding is clearly erroneous when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A9A6D2B6463A461F88257042004B8867/$file/0273837.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Fisher *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. ORDER The panel judges have voted to grant the petition for rehearing of amicus curiae National Immigration Project of the National Lawyer's Guild. Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Second Amended Opinion filed concurrently with this order. The central question is whether we lack jurisdiction to review his petition where the IJ found that Unuakhaulu was removable based on his aggravated felony conviction. We conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us only of jurisdiction to review orders of removal that are actually based on a petitioner's prior aggravated felony conviction.1 We therefore have jurisdiction to review the BIA's nondiscretionary denial of withholding. Which was not predicated on Unuakhaulu's aggravated felony. I. Unuakhaulu was admitted to the United States as a visitor on January 17. He was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit credit cards in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/46936F46BCE9F74D88256F70005882C5/$file/0273837.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The central question is whether we lack jurisdiction to review his petition where the IJ. We conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us only of jurisdiction to review orders of removal that are actually based on a petitioner's prior aggravated felony conviction.1 We therefore have jurisdiction to review the BIA's nondiscretionary denial of withholding. Which was not predicated on Unuakhaulu's aggravated felony. I. Unuakhaulu was admitted to the United States as a visitor on January 17. He was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit credit cards in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. All statutory citations are to 8 U.S.C. unless otherwise indicated. 1 UNUAKHAULU v. Finding that Unuakhaulu's prior conviction for credit card fraud was an aggravated felony and that he had remained as a visitor in the United States beyond the time authorized. His credit card fraud was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9BBF56819B07DD988257053004CA87F/$file/0273837.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Fisher *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Is deleted and replaced with the following text. The panel judges have voted to grant the petition for rehearing of amicus curiae National Immigration Project of the National Lawyer's Guild. The petition for rehearing en banc is therefore moot. Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Second Amended Opinion. GONZALES 10013 No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be considered. The central question is whether we lack jurisdiction to review his petition where the IJ found that Unuakhaulu was removable based on his aggravated felony conviction. We conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us only of jurisdiction to review orders of removal that are actually based on a petitioner's prior aggravated felony conviction.1 We therefore have jurisdiction to review the BIA's nondiscretionary denial of withholding. Which was not predicated on Unuakhaulu's aggravated felony. I. Unuakhaulu was admitted to the United States as a visitor on January 17. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/230CB468F910481588256FA8004DDEEB/$file/0273837.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The opinion filed at 392 F.3d 1024 (2004) is amended in full as follows: Opinion by Judge Fisher *This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. The central question is whether we lack jurisdiction to review his petition where the IJ. We conclude that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us only of jurisdiction to review orders of removal that are actually based on a petitioner's prior aggravated felony conviction.1 We therefore have jurisdiction to review the BIA's nondiscretionary denial of withholding. Which was not predi Hereinafter. All statutory citations are to 8 U.S.C. unless otherwise indicated. 1 UNUAKHAULU v. I. Unuakhaulu was admitted to the United States as a visitor on January 17. He was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit credit cards in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Finding that Unuakhaulu's prior conviction for credit card fraud was an aggravated felony and that he had remained as a visitor in the United States beyond the time authorized. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0034p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was presented as part of a consolidated appeal with United States v. Which will be discussed in a separate opinion. Walter Nelson was named in a thirtytwo count indictment for various offenses including conspiracy to commit federal crimes. Nelson was named in a forty four count first superseding indictment that named him in four additional charges and added four defendants. Nelson pleaded not guilty to all counts contained in the superseding indictment and was released on bond. Nelson was arrested after a traffic stop uncovered an open beer can underneath Nelson's seat. A warrant was issued to search Nelson's vehicle and a search revealed paperwork containing the personal information of over sixty individuals. A second superseding indictment was issued against Nelson that added five defendants. Nelson was sentenced to seven years. Each of these arguments will be addressed in turn. Thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the court to allocate its resources efficiently. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-3441.htm">02-3441 -- U.S. V. HOLCOMBE -- 09/08/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Elizabeth Marzette Holcombe pled guilty to credit card fraud. She was sentenced to five years probation on condition she be placed on home detention for six months and ordered to pay $27. None were given to the victims. The district court refused to deduct the value of the confiscated goods from the total loss amount because the victims are financial institutions and retailers. Which were not in the business of selling used consumer goods. <p> We review factual findings underlying the restitution order for clear error and the amount of restitution for abuse of discretion. Which is part of The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996. Restitution is to be in the full amount of the victim's loss. 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004037.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 00 4037 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Jones suggests that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. This court reviews a jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence by determining whether there is substantial evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3857.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clarence Cross was employed in the mail room of a large Chicago based insurance company. Cross was the supervisor in charge of outgoing mail services at CNA. Cross was personally authorized to issue checks to vendors in amounts up to $1. Evidence submitted at trial establishes that between August 1995 and July 1997 (when Cross was discharged) CNA issued some 400 checks representing approximately $3.8 million to three fictitious entities: Fidelity Graphics. The two were casual friends. William White was also acquainted with Clarence Cross. The entity was only used as a vehicle for the issuance and eventual conversion of CNA checks into cash. Then he would either take them to a bank or a currency exchange to have them cashed. All of the checks were made out for amounts less than $10. He was sentenced to a three year term in the Illinois Department of Corrections. This is when Cross sought Cassano's help in continuing the fraudulent cashing of CNA checks in his absence. 4 Nos. 01 3857. 01 3919 & 01 4368 Approximately a month before he was to begin serving his sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984877.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: The sole issue in this appeal is whether a district court has discretion under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (the MVRA) § 206(a). Is best described as occurring in four stages. The record does not establish that any of the Victim Financial Institutions received any of the forfeited property through the Department of Justice's program for remitting administrative forfeitures to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974350.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 4350 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. For which he was sentenced to thirty seven months imprisonment. Thurston claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. They also managed to convince Harris that Thurston was carrying a great deal of cash ostensibly from Thurston's share 2 of a settlement in a wrongful death action in South Africa which he wished to donate to a charitable cause in the United States. Thurston placed the money in a bandana and pretended to wrap it up with the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0731p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Mark Green was the subject of a nine count superseding indictment. He was found guilty on both charges. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). United States Postal Inspector James Bannan was conducting an investigation of mail and credit card fraud involving Mark Green. There were two occasions on which Bannan arrested Green. Your family is in jeopardy. While Bannan was on foot. A superseding nine count indictment was returned against Green which added to the original two counts seven new counts of mail. Testified that it was he who left the threatening message on Bannan's machine at Green's request.[fn2] Webb testified that he knew nothing of Bannan's family when he placed the call. Webb also testified that one day while he and Green were driving together with Bannan's license plate number written on a piece of paper on the car's console. Green told Webb he was trying to discover where Bannan lived. Webb testified that Green told him afterwards that he had been unable to find this out because the car was registered to a post office box. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063618P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The counts were unauthorized access device trafficking. Elmardoudi argues that the district court should have dismissed the earlier case with prejudice. Elmardoudi was arrested for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant appellant Elizabeth Mogaji was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud and five counts of fraudulent use of access devices. Defendant argues that the district court should have suppressed the contents of the two plastic bags found by Pamela McCutcheon and turned over to Secret Service Special Agent James Mooney. The government correctly responds that defendant has no standing to contest the search because she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common basement area of the duplex at 10 12 Stamford Avenue. Nor does the fact that defendant's driver's license was found in one of the bags make a difference. Judgment of Acquittal. 3 Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to find her guilty of any of the counts in the indictment. We will address these arguments by count. The evidence may be circumstantial and the prosecution does not have to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence. We have reviewed the trial transcript and conclude that these challenges go instead to the credibility of the witnesses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2285.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. Patti claims that his plea was involuntary because he did not understand the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4240.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The facts involved in this case are complicated and lengthy. The gang was modeled on the Chicago </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/10/974222P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was familiar with daily operations of certain banks and ATM machines. At the third bank he was unsuccessful. Casey's residence was searched pursuant to a federal warrant and he was arrested.2 He was charged with one count of bank theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). No plea agreement was involved. That recommendation would have resulted in a sentence of six to twelve months. The government objected and moved for an He was also arrested for state drug offenses and for the murder of his former wife. Those charges have no relevance to this action. 2 2 upward departure. It contended that a departure was warranted because grouping the various counts resulted in no incremental punishment for Casey. Casey was given an opportunity to respond. The probation office was directed to prepare another recommendation. The motion was denied. Casey was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. DISCUSSION We review the sentencing court's factual determinations for clear error while its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines are subject to de novo review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0936n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government asserts that Nappier's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and that the district court did not clearly err in finding that he voluntarily consented to the search of his home. Bartinski subsequently learned the credit card was fraudulently obtained and advised the Cleveland Police that the same caller had placed a second order for more cleaning supplies. Bartinski called the Strike Force detectives and informed them that individuals traveling in a white van were in the parking lot of Hough Supply preparing to pick up the second order. Once the van was loaded. Who told the detectives that they were at the residence to make a delivery to an individual named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011986P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Burns maintains that his due process rights were violated when the district court admitted testimony that he failed to respond to a question during his post arrest interrogation and that he eventually declined to answer further questions. Burns's silence in response to one question posed to him in the midst of his interrogation was a violation of the Supreme Court's holding in Doyle. We observe that a defendant's equivocal conduct generally is not sufficient to invoke his or her fifth amendment right to remain silent. Burns invoked this 2 constitutional right when he was silent in response to a question. We have held that where the accused initially waives his or her right to remain silent and agrees to questioning. Burns's silent response to one inquiry during the interrogation and eventual refusal to respond to further questioning were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1015p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the district court properly applied Guideline Section 3B1.1 in finding that Hunter was a manager of a criminal conspiracy and subject to a two level enhancement pursuant to Section 3B1.1(c). We will affirm those portions of the orders of the district court. We will reverse and remand. As new distributors are recruited. Sponsors are promoted to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1111.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. With whom Richard Briansky was on brief. Nuzzo's discharge was not permanent it turned out to be the functional equivalent of a six month suspension without pay but Nuzzo vociferously blamed Taraskiewicz for his predicament. Brooks knew that Nuzzo blamed Taraskiewicz for his enforced vacation and that Nuzzo harbored considerable ill will toward her. Brooks was a peripheral player. Wondered whether there was a stool pigeon among the baggage handlers. Nuzzo posited that Taraskiewicz was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-2112.htm">99-2112 -- BERRY-GURULE V. LUCERO -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Alleging that her trial counsel was ineffective and that for this reason her 1996 guilty plea in New Mexico state court was involuntary and unintelligent. We therefore have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Berry Gurule was charged by indictment in New Mexico state court with: (1) five counts of child abuse. Berry Gurule was further charged by indictment with: (1) five counts of fraudulent use of a credit card. These cases were consolidated. She alleged that she was denied effective assistance of counsel because her trial counsel. Her plea was therefore not entered knowingly. The district judge who signed the order was W. The amended order stated: <p> Petitioner's first issue states that she was denied effective assistance of counsel. She argues that counsel did not review the consequences of the plea and she was given the last page of the agreement and told to sign it. At the time of the plea Petitioner was represented by counsel and informed by the court of the rights she would be waiving by her acceptance of the plea agreement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-3835.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BULL (6/12/2000, NO. 98-3835)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is a case of first impression in this Circuit. The issue on appeal is whether the district court had authority to impose such conditions since they are unrelated to the credit card crime and conviction. We affirm. </P> <P> A pre approved VISA credit card application in another person's name was mistakenly delivered to Bull. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Bull challenges this condition on the ground that it is not reasonably related to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-3835.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BULL (6/12/2000, NO. 98-3835)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is a case of first impression in this Circuit. The issue on appeal is whether the district court had authority to impose such conditions since they are unrelated to the credit card crime and conviction. We affirm. </P> <P> A pre approved VISA credit card application in another person's name was mistakenly delivered to Bull. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Bull challenges this condition on the ground that it is not reasonably related to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0418p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which requires the Attorney General to detain immigrants who have committed certain crimes. Ly was convicted of credit card fraud. Ly was involved in a checkkiting scheme. He was convicted of bank fraud. Ly was kept in detention for 500 days. The INS asserted that Ly was subject to removal1 from the United States because he was an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. He was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. With another charge that Ly was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. The hearing was rescheduled for September 21. Actual removal of Ly from the United States was never a possibility during this process. Vietnam has not and does not accept deportees because there is no repatriation agreement between the United States and Vietnam. 1 1999 hearing. The immigration judge found that Ly was removable. The hearing was continued to April 28. Granting habeas relief unless a bond hearing was held. The immigration judge determined that he did not have the statutory authority to release Ly from detention. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/00-11114.man.html">UNITED KINGDOM V. UNITED STATES (1/19/2001, NO. 00-11114)<BR></A><BR> All of which Appellants contend are relevant to their defense of a criminal prosecution in England. The district court found that the undisclosed documents are privileged or protected by statute. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/042586U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wantland was also convicted of credit card fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1644 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. C Builders was supposed to pay B Builders for work on the houses. The loans were also personally guaranteed by Keisling's brother and sister in law. Proceeds of the loans are released only upon presentation of proof ­ typically an invoice ­ that the builder spent funds on the project. Is granted. 22 1 construction. The bank discovered the invoices from C Builders were fabricated or altered. Several checks written by CBuilders for subcontractor work purportedly done by B Builders were never cashed. The bank was reimbursing C Builders for funds it never actually paid. Neither house was complete. They were arrested in Ohio. Wantland claims that the evidence at trial was insufficient because he never personally altered any invoices or company checks submitted to the bank. It did show Wantland was guilty of bank fraud under an aiding and abetting theory ­ 18 U.S.C. § 2. Wantland was in overall charge of the construction companies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1560.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Casner & Edwards were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. That the evidence was insufficient to support any of the counts of conviction. Evidence of the following was presented: (1) violations of civil rights laws by Brian Clayton (the underlying investigation in this case). The purpose of which was to advise and find attorneys for people who claimed that their First Amendment rights were being violated. Brian Clayton (Clayton) was a twenty year old founder of a skinhead organization formed in August of 1993 in Brockton. Three Jewish temples were spray painted with anti Semitic graffiti including a swastika. A federal grand jury was convened to investigate the temple desecrations as violations of civil rights laws. Told her that her son was a suspect in an investigation of temple desecrations. After another temple was vandalized on April 30. Clayton was in Florida with his family for his sister's wedding. Some of the symbols and slogans on the objects in Clayton's rooms were similar to those spray painted on the temples. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/00-11114.man.html">UNITED KINGDOM V. UNITED STATES (1/19/2001, NO. 00-11114)<BR></A><BR> All of which Appellants contend are relevant to their defense of a criminal prosecution in England. The district court found that the undisclosed documents are privileged or protected by statute. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974369.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. No. 97 4369 OPINION PER CURIAM: Akinola Obayanju was convicted by a jury of three counts of assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 111 (West Supp. 1998). He was sentenced to a term of eighty four months imprisonment and appeals his sentence. The government produced evidence that Obayanju was under surveillance by four agents from the Baltimore Fraud Task Force in July 1996 when he picked up mail. Tate was wearing a vest clearly marked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0225p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States was engaged in a criminal investigation of Plaintiff Steven Warshak and the company he owned. (2) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/05/993475P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The total amount of actual and intended loss in this case was greater than $70. The district court held that an upward departure was warranted in this case. Sample contends that the district court failed to afford her proper notice that it was considering a departure from the applicable sentencing range. The district court stated that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/054222U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Humphrey first argues there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of what he characterizes as two of three </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061668np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the sentence.1 I. Baymon was involved in a fraud scheme that involved the resale of baseball tickets that had been purchased with stolen credit card numbers. Baymon was charged by a federal grand jury in September 2003. Was released on bond in February 2004. He was apprehended in Illinois on November 1. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. 2 1 prior convictions. Two of these prior convictions a June 1998 Illinois conviction and a September 2001 conviction were for credit card fraud. Baymon's guidelines recommended sentence was fifteen to twenty one months imprisonment. Baymon argues that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/995569.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> New Jersey Counsel for Appellant * Honorable Will Garwood. Swint was arrested and charged by information with one count of violating 18 U.S.C. The agreement provides that the nonprosecution provisions will be ineffective if Swint commits any new federal. Is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States. Is punishable as a principal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061100np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will dismiss in part and deny in part. He was convicted in a federal court in New York of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit credit card fraud. He was found guilty of filing fraudulent tax returns. Ogunwomoju was convicted on two separate state charges that he committed petit larceny. Ogunwomoju was convicted in a New York state court of criminal possession of a controlled substance. Removal proceedings were begun in 2004. Who was then represented by counsel. Offering evidence suggesting that his 2000 drug conviction might have been overturned. The IJ found that Ogunwomoju's 2000 conviction was intact (he had only filed a collateral attack of the conviction). The Board's denial of that motion is not before us. 1033 34 (3d Cir. 1986). 3 1 We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Ogunwomoju's motion to reopen. 405 (1995) (holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct). 185 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that the requirement that an alien appeal a removal order within 30 days is jurisdictional). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984141.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 4141 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was sentenced to thirty eight months imprisonment. I. Kehoe was an insurance agent for Jackson National Life Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTEwODJfc28ucGRm/03-1082_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTUxODlfc28ucGRm/04-5189_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0381n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Powell was subsequently sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment. Powell was on supervised release after having served a prison sentence for a previous federal mail fraud conviction. Was approximately $22. The government also argued that there was similar uncharged fraudulent conduct during the time alleged in the indictment that resulted in tax refund requests of over $200. The remaining charges were dismissed in exchange for her plea. The government asked the court to have Powell state on the record that she was in fact the individual who signed both the plea agreement and the Agreed Factual Basis. Cook prepared and presented to the IRS what reported [sic] to be Federal Individual Income Tax Returns for all individuals that are named in the Agreed Factual [B]asis filed with the Court today for a total of two hundred fourteen thousand eight hundred seventy two dollars in falsely claimed tax refunds. Powell also specifically said that she understood what she was pleading guilty to and that she was offering to plead guilty because she was in fact guilty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/952693U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They were moved to Friendship The Honorable Charles A. Vetter was confined to the health center. than $4. Kalagian was charged with violating section 1029(a)(2). Kalagian first contends that her sixth amendment right to confront witnesses was violated because the government did not call the credit card account holders at trial. We also reject Kalagian's claim that the evidence was insufficient to show that the use of the credit cards was unauthorized. We find there was ample. Could not have been purchased for her mother's benefit. We have considered and find to be without merit Kalagian's contention that the district court erred in admitting under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence of her prior conviction for credit card fraud. The conviction is affirmed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034229.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He was sentenced to a term of fifty four months imprisonment and ordered to pay $308. Representing that he was employed by the manufacturer to sell directly from the factory. Neither of these factors is relevant to the court's determination. He also claims the enhancement does not apply because the amendment that added the enhancement was intended to punish telemarketing fraud. He acknowledges that the enhancement for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/023831u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rendered the trial unfair.2 Because we find that any failure to disclose was harmless. We will affirm. Zimmerman argues that the Court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1174.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. He was sentenced to eighteen months' (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Franklin was charged in a seven count superseding indictment in which six of the counts alleged fraud in connection with access devices and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(5) and 2 and one count alleged mail theft and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1708 and 2. Franklin was suffering from mental illness. Franklin was capable of forming the requisite mental state to commit the crimes alleged in the indictment. That he was not <hr> competent to stand trial. Franklin's change of plea hearing he was advised of the possible penalties he faced for the offense to which he was pleading. Franklin was entering the plea voluntarily and not in response to any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014311.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> HARVEY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The probation officer also recommended an additional four level enhancement based upon a finding that Harvey was a leader in a criminal enterprise that involved five or more participants. That restitution was required in the amount of $39. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952539P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With Chanise Lynn and Zackarrie Prado that their interstate murder for hire convictions must be reversed. violated federal law. have taken part in a murder plot. We remand Saunders's case for resentencing U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). because the murder for hire plot of which he was a leader or organizer did not involve five or more </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/024575p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Plotts was denied the right of allocution at sentencing. Plotts was arrested in Delaware on the suspicion of bank robbery. Responsibility for his supervision was transferred to the Probation Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plotts was arrested in November 2002 by the Pennsylvania State Police for violating 18 Pa. Plotts was not given an opportunity to address the Court. Alleging that (1) he was denied the right of allocution at his release revocation hearing before sentence was imposed. (2) the District Court improperly treated a charged Grade C violation as a Grade A violation for sentencing purposes (thus increasing his sentence). 4 While we are unaware of any formal criminal charges against Plotts for credit card fraud. It is irrelevant to our resolution of this case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 4 3 2 In its brief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="350"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-4949.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="350"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/011004p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue presented in this appeal is whether the rule of law announced by the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. The courts of appeals that have considered the issue have uniformly held that Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. I. BACKGROUND Appellant Andre Swinton was charged with various drug offenses in a six count superseding indictment returned in 1994. He was found guilty after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base (crack). Swinton claimed that his rights to due process and a jury trial were violated because the jury was instructed that the 4 Government need not prove the quantity and identity of the drugs involved in his case. This claim was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. Contending that there was no merit to Swinton's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Accordingly the Supplemental Motion was time barred under the statute of limitations provision of § 2255. It argued that even if Apprendi were applicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="350"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-4949.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1309.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fischer</U> was on brief. Hopkins</U> was on brief. Appellant was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Angela Howell. Appellant's picture was on Beane's identification. The officer became suspicious and requested further identification when appellant told him he was Dana Richardson. In appellant's wallet were credit cards and picture identifications. Credit cards and identifications.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964529.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was found guilty by a jury of five counts of mail fraud and five counts of using an unauthorized access device (credit card fraud). Obtained a duplicate card on each account in his name as Wolfe's spouse (they were not married). Even if we were to find the prosecutor's comments made during closing arguments improper. Wilkins cannot show that his substantial rights were prejudiced such that he was deprived of a fair trial. The comments were isolated. Was substantial. Wilkins has failed to provide this court with any basis for his claims that the district court allowed untruthful testimony and has also failed to specify which evidentiary rulings he alleges are erroneous. A district court's finding of amount of loss is generally a factual question reviewed for clear error. Each case is decided on its own facts. The district court did not clearly err by determining that the intended loss was in excess of $70. The district court found that the intended loss was in excess of $70. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974465.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rehearing en banc on the witness exclusion issue of Michael Rhynes is granted. Parts IV and XVI (only insofar as Part XVI relates to Part IV) of the published majority opinion filed 10/26/99 are vacated. Lines 11 12 the counsel listing is corrected to add </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="324"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024985.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Heggen was sentenced to seventy five months incarceration. He was sentenced to a special assessment of $1100 and restitution of $59. Upward departures are reviewed for abuse of discretion under the multi part test set out in Koon v. It will not be disturbed on appeal. Heggen asserts the crimes enumerated in the presentence report were part of three distinct schemes and therefore should have UNITED STATES v. Because the numerous convictions were not grouped for trial or for sentencing. They were properly counted separately under USSG § 4A1.1. Heggen further asserts he was awarded criminal history points for his conviction for failing to self surrender. That act was double counted when the failure to report was treated as an escape. Further points were added to his criminal history for escape. Were properly added under USSG § 4A1.1(a). Two points were properly added to the subtotal of forty criminal history points pursuant to USSG § 4A1.1(d) and § 4A1.2(n) for committing the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="324"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTI0Mjhfc28ucGRm/04-2428_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="321"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/032623np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2004) OPINION OF THE COURT When this case was first listed for disposition on January 16. We have jurisdiction based on 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(4) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Who are familiar with the facts and the proceedings in the district court. Our discussion of the background will be limited. He later was sentenced to six months in prison and three years on supervised release. 2001 and was to end on January 12. Benjamin was afforded ample opportunity to involve himself in drug treatment and failed to successfully finish the program. The 14 month sentence at the high end of the guideline is believed necessary to sanction Mr. We must determine whether the sentence imposed by the district court for violation of the conditions of supervised release was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="321"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1119.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Robyn Anderson was convicted of wire fraud. Is not required to address each element of perjury in a separate 2 and clear finding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="313"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3465.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant James Brigman was convicted of making a false statement in connection with the attempted acquisition of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6). Was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 120 months in accordance with the penalty provisions set forth in 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2). We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Roos' purse were her checkbook (for the joint checking account she shared with her husband. The photograph on the driver's license was later determined by law enforcement authorities to be that of defendant Brigman. An employee of The Bullet Hole ran the check through Telecheck and received back a code indicating either that there was not enough information to approve the check or that the check had not been approved. Was involved in the search of a Mitsubishi Galant following a reported shooting outside a nightclub. Included was the voided check that had been used during the attempted firearm and ammunition purchase at The Bullet Hole on December 10. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-9442.man.html">UNITED STATES V. QUINONES (3/11/1998, NO. 96-9442)<BR></A><BR> Quinones was sentenced to two consecutive 18 month terms of imprisonment following his violation of a condition of two concurrent terms of supervised release. We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Quinones was convicted of credit card fraud in the Northern District of Georgia and sentenced to a prison term followed by a term of supervised release. He was convicted in the District of South Carolina for another instance of credit card fraud and sentenced to terms of imprisonment and of supervised release that were to run concurrently with the terms imposed by the Northern District of Georgia.</P> <P> While Quinones was serving these concurrent terms of supervised release. The South Carolina and Georgia cases were consolidated in the Northern District of Georgia. 982 (11th Cir.1992).</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Discussion</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> This question is one of first impression in this circuit. The Eighth Circuit accordingly concluded that consecutive sentences for violation of conditions of two terms of supervised release are permissible.</P> <P> Quinones argues to the contrary that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-9442.man.html">UNITED STATES V. QUINONES (3/11/1998, NO. 96-9442)<BR></A><BR> Quinones was sentenced to two consecutive 18 month terms of imprisonment following his violation of a condition of two concurrent terms of supervised release. We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Quinones was convicted of credit card fraud in the Northern District of Georgia and sentenced to a prison term followed by a term of supervised release. He was convicted in the District of South Carolina for another instance of credit card fraud and sentenced to terms of imprisonment and of supervised release that were to run concurrently with the terms imposed by the Northern District of Georgia.</P> <P> While Quinones was serving these concurrent terms of supervised release. The South Carolina and Georgia cases were consolidated in the Northern District of Georgia. 982 (11th Cir.1992).</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Discussion</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> This question is one of first impression in this circuit. The Eighth Circuit accordingly concluded that consecutive sentences for violation of conditions of two terms of supervised release are permissible.</P> <P> Quinones argues to the contrary that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1793.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government was required to prove that the offenses had a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964776.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Fajemirokun alleges that the district court did not give him sufficient notice of the specific grounds it was contemplating in deciding to depart upward and in finding that an upward departure was warranted.* Because Fajemirokun waived his right to appeal the sentence in his plea agreement. The terms of Fajemirokun's written plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal any sentence within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-1063.htm">01-1063 -- U.S. V. THOMAS -- 04/10/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Mark Charles Thomas. He was apprehended in December 1997 and charged with escape. His defense was mistaken identity: he claimed his name was Andre Strauss and that he was not Mark Charles Thomas who escaped from prison. The jury was not persuaded. He was convicted and sentenced to forty one months' imprisonment. Stating that the government presented overwhelming evidence that petitioner is the same Mark Charles Thomas who escaped his incarceration at the prison camp in May 1997. <em>United States v. Counsel was appointed and the district court reimposed the same sentence. The result would not have been different. <em>See Slack v. Or that the question deserves further proceedings). <p> Petitioner first claims his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the district court's denial of his pre trial motion to subpoena a . Would have testified at trial that he is not her son. This argument is completely speculative because petitioner failed to support his assertion with any supporting evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BDB0861A72E7ECD388256DD0007C437E/$file/0230323.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction is proper before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Vieke's parents discovered that their daughter was responsible for obtaining approximately $50. It explained as the basis for its objection that gambling addiction is not one of the recognized impairments allowed under the Sentencing Guidelines. That this legal issue is being appealed in a separate case. The Government also stated that her crime is identity theft. VIEKE did not support the claim that the fraudulent use of her parents' identities was something she could not control due to her gambling addiction. I no longer have any discretion in making recommendations to the court with respect to downward departures. It is a bit that I cannot remove. Noting that Vieke's behavior was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/032434p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a Nigerian national who filed pro se motions in the District Court of New Jersey seeking dismissal of the detainer lodged against him in May 2002 for violating the terms of his supervised release. That the period of supervised release included as part of his 1997 sentence should have been deemed extinguished upon his subsequent deportation. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 I. He was released into the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He was deported to Nigeria. Before his term of supervised release was to end. He was arrested under an alias in the Northern District of Illinois. Williams pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Williams was indicted for illegally re entering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Williams was sentenced to seven months imprisonment and two years of supervised release. After a detainer was lodged against him. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/021667u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we agree that such a hearing was not required. The INS denied the request after concluding that the marriage was fraudulent. Prosper was convicted in DeKalb County. Alleging that Prosper was deportable as a result of the two convictions for crimes of moral turpitude pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). In addition to alleging that Prosper was deportable due to his two convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. This OSC alleged that Prosper was deportable due to the cancellation of his conditional resident status. Prosper was indicted in federal court in Minnesota for money laundering and committing fraud on a financial institution. While Prosper was serving his federal sentence. Discussion </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/95-4201.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. SHUMWAY<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Shumway was charged in a three count indictment alleging: 1) violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Shumway was charged in a four count indictment. Dop Ki Cave is located on federal lands in Canyonlands National Park. Is located on federal lands near Allen Canyon. Miller if he could find a helicopter to fly them around to find archeological (2) Anasazi is the name assigned by archaeologists to a prehistoric culture living in the Four Corners area of Utah. Shumway arranged to have Mr. When the damage to the site was later assessed. The only portion of the infant's skeleton remaining was the skull on top of the dirt pile. Shumway was not the person who committed the offenses. Shumway that identity was the only issue involved. Shumway's total offense level was twenty two and his criminal history level IV. Shumway argues the 1984 evidence lacked the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034299.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BECKLEY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He was sentenced to forty four months imprisonment. Beckley must not only demonstrate that his attorney's actions were both deficient and prejudicial. Beckley must show there is a reasonable probability that. He would not have pled guilty. Fourteen levels are added to defendant's offense level. Without an affirmative showing by the defendant that information in the presentence report is inaccurate. The district court is free to adopt the presentence report's findings without more specific inquiry or explanation. This claim is reviewed for plain error. Four conditions must be met before this court will notice plain error: (1) there must be error. Typically meaning the defendant is prejudiced by the error in that it affected the outcome of the proceedings. The amount of loss used in determining the offense level is the greater of the actual or intended loss. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974326.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 4326 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Joseph Lynn Francis was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas of one count each of unauthorized use of an access device (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (1994)) and impersonating a government agent (18 U.S.C. § 912 (1994)). Francis based his motion on his allegation that his confession was illegally obtained. Francis acquired numerous credit cards by falsely representing to others by telephone that he was an agent with a credit card company. Francis was eventually apprehended by Virginia authorities and charged under state law for credit card fraud. An attorney from the local public defender's office was appointed to represent him. The record discloses that Francis sought federal prosecution because he acted as an informant while he was a state prisoner. Filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that his confession was illegally obtained when agents questioned him after he had invoked his right to counsel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/962764U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant's plea was conditioned on the right to appeal the search and seizure issue raised in his Motion to Suppress. The agents were plain Detective Russell kept surveillance on one of the men (defendant Edwards) while Officer Morgan watched the other man (appellant Tracy Evans) and Agent Hollman watched the woman (defendant Yvette Evans). Purpose Russell also asked if he could Edwards dropped the bag and search the duffel bag Edwards was carrying. consent to a search. pointed to it with both hands. Edwards Inside the box were several counterfeit credit cards. Morgan identified himself as a police Evans consented and Morgan asked Morgan also asked Evans if he was officer and asked to speak with Evans. had any luggage. Ticket information. replied he was not. him questions regarding identification. Ultimately the agents arrived at the consensus that the three individuals were associated in credit card fraud. placed the personal belongings of to traveling. bag. Appellant Evans later testified that he borrowed the duffel bag from his sister and that he all three defendants in the bag prior He also testified that both he and Edwards wrapped the counterfeit credit cards and that he was aware the cards were in the duffel After Edwards retrieved the duffel bag at the airport. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="273"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1302p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Issue in this appeal is whether civil forfeiture. We conclude that we have jurisdiction and affirm. Lundis requested that the court allow him to keep the property in light of the court's requirement that he pay restitution.[fn1] The Government argued that the computers were proceeds of Lundis's crime. Thus were subject to civil forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(C).[fn2] The court denied Lundis's request for possession of the property. Stating that the computers were forfeitable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="273"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4091.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. <hr> Defendant Kenneth Hamilton was convicted. Was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty four months. Was using a police developed computer program called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-3061.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. HAWLEY<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Hawley was sentenced on February 6. Hawley also claims that enhancing his offense level by two points for obstruction of justice constituted double jeopardy because judgment previously was entered against him on the same conduct when he violated his appearance bond. Judge Newman also advised Hawley that his next appearance date was August 16. Hawley was eventually arrested again on September 9. He was arraigned on September 30. Held a hearing concerning matters that were relevant to Hawley's ability to provide information pursuant to the plea agreement. Notwithstanding assurances from certain law enforcement officials in Arkansas that Hawley was still valuable to investigations there. He suggested there was reason to suspect that law enforcement themselves were involved in the drug activities. Hawley requested that the court order an investigation to determine whether his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/972233U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Steven Triplett was previously sentenced for the armed robbery of a United States Post Office. After examining the resentencing transcript and the statement at issue that the Court was going to sentence Triplett </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E85A7E326E4C7EB88256CDE005EDE97/$file/0130419.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Weber argues (1) that a judicial proceeding was not pending at the time he left a voice mail message threatening to murder a federal district judge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Assistant United States Attorney Mark Rosenbaum ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EA55B1AE87FE25C388257082007FF75A/$file/0310421.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Kortgaard's sentence was increased under § 4A1.3 and exceeds the maximum authorized sentence based solely on the jury's verdict under the then mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. Factual and Procedural History Kortgaard was originally charged with manufacturing marijuana based on his cultivation of 50 or more plants and pos UNITED STATES v. The district court departed upward to a range of 37 to 46 months and ultimately sentenced Kortgaard to 46 months in prison.1 The upward departure was based on the judge's finding that the applicable guideline range inadequately represented the seriousness of Kortgaard's criminal history and his likelihood of recidivism. Kortgaard was on supervised release from a 1994 heroin conviction at the time he committed the instant offense. 2 All citations to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in this opinion are to the version incorporating amendments effective November 1. Kortgaard maintains that the district court's findings and the resulting upward departure are erroneous on the merits and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/04/013405U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the conviction was more than 15 years old at the time of the instant sentencing. Because the underlying conduct occurred after the conduct underlying the instant conviction and was part of a common plan or scheme with the instant offense. Guerra argues that his plea was unknowing and involuntary because he was unaware of the effect his criminal history would have on his sentence. He was incarcerated on the 1985 conviction through February 1991. The conduct underlying the 2001 conviction was not used to determine the amount of loss for the instant offense. Guerra's claim that his plea was unknowing and involuntary first must be raised in the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1908.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 4. Was on brief for appellee. That the error was harmless. I. The facts as the jury could have found them are as follows. Defendant was at the wheel. No one else was in the car. They 3 were told that there was none in either state under the name and date of birth given by defendant. Eventually defendant was handcuffed and arrested. Arias Montoya's defense at trial was that he did not know the cocaine was in the trunk of the car. He claimed to have borrowed the car from a friend to drive from New York to Rhode Island to visit another friend for the day. The prosecution introduced into evidence Arias Montoya's 1983 conviction for cocaine possession.2 The district court instructed the jury on 1At all times relevant to this appeal defendant was unemployed and an illegal alien. 2Defendant was charged with possessing 400 grams of cocaine in Harris County. The offense was reduced to possession of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972140.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 2140 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The first policy was a disability policy. Was paying Harvey $3. The second was an income insurance policy. Was paying appellant $8. New York Life paid these benefits based on Harvey having a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTE2NjctY3Jfc28ucGRm/03-1667-cr_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034253.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of which are connected to his support of Hizballah. The appeal was argued before a three judge panel. I. Facts The facts underlying Hammoud's convictions and sentence are largely undisputed. A. Hizballah Hizballah is an organization founded by Lebanese Shi'a Muslims in response to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. It is also a strong opponent of Western presence in the Middle East. Hizballah is particularly opposed to the existence of Israel and to the activities of the American government in the Middle East. Hizballah's general secretary is Hassan Nasserallah. Its spiritual leader is Sheikh Fadlallah. While the asylum application was pending. Where his brothers and cousins were living. While the North Carolina tax is only 50¢. It is estimated that the conspiracy involved a quantity of cigarettes valued at roughly $7.5 million and that the state of Michigan was deprived of $3 million in tax revenues. These services were often conducted at Hammoud's home. Hammoud who is acquainted with both Nasserallah and Fadlallah. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/017109.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ANGELONE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Riddick was sentenced to a total of fifteen years in prison. His state habeas corpus petition was unsuccessful. Relief may be granted under § 2254 only if the state court's decision is contrary to. A state court's factual findings are presumed correct unless the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. § 2254(e)(1). Alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he asked counsel to seek reconsideration of his sentence and counsel did not comply. It is not clear from Riddick's pleadings whether he claims he asked counsel merely to seek reconsideration of his sentence in the trial court. Riddick's verified petition is the equivalent of an affidavit. If his petition is construed as alleging that counsel did not comply with his request to file an appeal. It is not contradicted by counsel's affidavit. Whichever is meant. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054824np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Surveillance was conducted of Albert while he was at a hotel. Suspicious activity was observed and this led to the stop and search of the vehicle. Albert was convicted of credit card fraud and using counterfeiting devices. Most of which are based on the search and seizure of his vehicle. VII and VIII were dismissed by the District Court for failure to state a claim.1 Summary judgment was granted in favor of the Defendants on Claims IV and IX. Albert's Motion for Relief filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) was denied.2 Albert timely appealed. We will not discuss this claim in this Opinion. 2002 Order was no longer equitable in light of the purported factual misrepresentations upon which its decision was based. 2 2 Our review is plenary. Summary judgment is proper when. There is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. To the extent that the motion is being brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). Our review is plenary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1821_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After admitting that his prior statements were false. Ross claimed that he was cooperating with the FBI to protect his son from a child sex ring with which Ross was associated. He said that members of the sex ring were holding his son somewhere in Oregon. Further investigation established that the individual in the photograph was not Ross's son. Ross had obtained the photograph eight years earlier when he was acquainted with the boy's family. While Ross was incarcerated in a Wisconsin prison. A majority of the inmates with whom Ross had sexual contact were No. 06 1821 3 victims of sexual abuse or in the sex offender treatment program. Highly manipulative individual who is likely to prey on vulnerable dependent individuals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984110.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Perry contends that the district court clearly erred in denying her an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility because of her continued criminal conduct while she was released on bond pending trial. Based on wages she falsely claimed to have earned working for her father in 1996. Perry was arrested in February 1997 and released on bond. A bond hearing was scheduled. She was arrested on state charges. Because Perry continued her criminal conduct after she was indicted. Perry argues on appeal that she was entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility because she entered a guilty plea and discussed her criminal conduct 1 U.S. Denial of the adjustment based on post indictment criminal conduct was not clearly erroneous. Perry contends that the district court abused its discretion when it departed upward on the ground that criminal history category VI was inadequate. She argues that her prior record was not serious enough to warrant a departure because her offenses were non violent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/013544P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams was sentenced to 46 months in prison and three years supervised release. The United States filed a petition seeking commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 on the grounds that Williams was mentally ill and dangerous. I. Williams is currently 27 years old. He was in and out of boys' homes until age seventeen when he was permanently discharged after committing burglary in the second degree. Williams' interaction with the federal correctional system began in 1996 when he was convicted of impersonating a military officer. When the sergeant on duty concluded that the identification card was fraudulent. Williams was taken into custody. He was sent to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Milan. United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 2 1 Williams' placement at FCI Milan was rocky. He perceived nearly all staff actions as insults and was repeatedly placed in disciplinary segregation for disobeying orders or refusing to work. After which he was placed briefly on suicide watch and ordered to attend counseling sessions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/993329.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioner Charles Walker was convicted and sentenced by the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands for breaking various Virgin Islands criminal laws. Our threshold task in this appeal is to satisfy ourselves that we have jurisdiction to entertain it. We ultimately conclude that we have no jurisdiction in the absence of a certificate of appealability issued under 28 U.S.C. We will afford him a fair opportunity to request such a certificate and to provide support for that request. A certificate will be issued only if Walker is able to meet the standard recently established in Slack v. He was questioned by a United States 2 Customs agent regarding his customs declaration form. Walker was detained at the airport and arrested later that same day. His motion was denied. 1 and he was tried and convicted of all counts. That appeal is currently pending. Alleges that he is in custody in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Petitioner also moved to suppress the identification of him by a salesperson from the jewelry store while he was detained in a holding cell at the airport. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/002813U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0273n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each sentence was within the range recommended by the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. Each defendant argues that his or her sentence is unreasonable. After their rental car was impounded because Torres was driving it without a license. Prado and Torres were caught attempting to retrieve $32. There is no indication that the officers arrested either Torres or Prado or that they discovered evidence that Torres was abusing Prado. Both defendants agreed that they were responsible for between five and fifteen kilograms of cocaine. 2 United States v. No. 06 5054 Prado and Torres were no strangers to criminal behavior when their conspiracy began. All were for criminal conduct that occurred in 1992 and 1993. When he was seventeen and eighteen years old. All three offenses were felonies involving the sale of narcotics. Was paroled after nine months. That her criminal history was in category IV. It calculated that her advisory sentencing range under the Guidelines was 135 to 168 months of imprisonment. Prado did not object to this calculation at sentencing and concedes on appeal that it is correct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974530.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Woodard was released to the Community Corrections Facility (CCF) in Raleigh. Namely that [Woodard] signed out of the [CCF] facility on the pretense of employment but did not work and was whereabouts unknown during those periods. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/043930U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Marshall and his counsel both argue that the district court erred by determining that two of his prior convictions for receiving stolen property and for credit card fraud were not related. Which showed that the offenses were separated by an intervening arrest. We conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTYwMTNfc28ucGRm/04-6013_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/983103P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States appeals the district court's2 order suppressing a statement made by Skye Renee Davis to local and federal authorities because it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 suppressed the statement because the officers' delay in presenting Davis to a magistrate for a determination of whether probable cause supported her warrantless arrest was for the sole purpose of investigating whether Davis had committed federal firearm offenses. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's suppression order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Suspected that she was actually involved in the illegal trafficking of firearms. Davis was placed in a holding cell at the police station while Johnson conferred with Sergeant Joe Flaherty. Davis was not charged with any crime that day. Was released after agreeing to cooperate with 2 federal authorities in obtaining evidence against her boyfriend.3 Despite the fact that she was detained for over two hours before her interview with Flaherty and Kaminski. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/96-6213.ma2.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER (4/7/1999, NO. 96-6213)<BR></A><BR> All of whom are prison inmates who have tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Have sued officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTE0OTdfc28ucGRm/03-1497_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/031838U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of United States v. Bye was appointed to replace the Honorable Richard S. This error was not prejudicial because the record does not show any reasonable probability Smith would have received a more favorable sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. After determining the applicable Guidelines range was 59 to 74 months. Smith cannot establish he would have received a more favorable sentence when the district court. That he would have received a more favorable sentence where the sentence imposed was at the top of the Guidelines range). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/971044U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude Evans has failed to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel's performance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1542.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner was the only person named in an indictment charging him with murder. The evidence at trial revealed that the victim was forced into a car defendant was driving. The victim's body was discovered the next day. Silva never was charged. Petitioner's conviction was upheld on appeal. (3) counsel was ineffective in neglecting to object to the instruction. Because we find that the instruction was proper. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses the Sixth Amendment right to fair notice of the criminal charges one will face. Upon conviction shall suffer the like punishment as the 3 principal offender is subject to by this title. In so holding the court stated: In this state it is still the law that an indictment for a felony must charge a person as a principal or as an accessory before the fact. That on an indictment which charges the defendant as principal he cannot be convicted on evidence showing that he was merely an accessory. The defendant was charged in an indictment as a principal in the commission of larceny. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964541.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that the proper time for Johnson to have challenged the district court's drug screening order 1 Johnson was indicted for. Violating § 1028 under the name Bonji Denard Crane. 2 and the imposition of the fine and costs of court appointed counsel would have been in the appeal of the judgment of conviction rather than in this appeal of the district court's revocation order. The revocation order in CR 29 noted: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/031248u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that the consecutive sentences imposed upon him on remand were in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Will affirm. We will not reprise all that has gone before. As it is well known to those involved. His total offense level was determined to be 20. That that advice was incorrect. Was very specific and extremely narrow. The sentence should not exceed the total of 75 months to which Dixon was first sentenced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0013n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a criminal case. Thomas is on supervised release after serving a period of incarceration for a bank robbery conviction. Arguing that the modification is not reasonably related to his bank robbery conviction. Imposes a greater deprivation on his liberty than is necessary. The decision of the district court is REVERSED and the special condition is VACATED. Thomas was charged in a three count indictment with bank robbery. Thomas pled guilty to count one and the other two counts were dismissed at sentencing. One of his prior offenses was a 1986 conviction for sexual battery. Was charged with rape after his former girlfriend discovered him engaging in sexual intercourse with her nineyear old daughter. Thomas pled guilty to sexual battery and was sentenced to three years in prison. Thomas was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment followed by three years supervised release. His sentence was affirmed on appeal. There have not been any concerns. Have you recommended an additional condition for his supervised release? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1921.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There is no merit in petitioner's contention that. Who was then represented by counsel. Conceded at his deportation hearing that he was deportable on the basis of this conviction. Even if the issue were not therefore waived. Any alien who has committed a crime of moral turpitude and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/963575U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a) and (b)(2). have received an acceptance of responsibility Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1995). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044081np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. I. FACTS Petitioner Robert Beckley was sentenced on March 17. Petitioner was eligible for. Was on the waiting list to participate in. Because no part of the incentive is mandatory. Reduction in an inmate's sentence or amount of time served is not guaranteed. Petitioner was relocated to Fairton's Special Housing Unit ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1384.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced on January 25. The court determined that the appropriate offense level was 10. The court also found that appellant's criminal history score was 13 and that he thus had a criminal history category of VI. For appellant's having committed the instant offense while </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/031319u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to thirty three months imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $41. The District Court granted Wilson's request and new counsel was appointed to prosecute Wilson's appeal.1 After meeting with Wilson and reviewing the record and caselaw. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1787.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. He contends that the search that led to his arrest and conviction was not supported by probable cause and that he was wrongly deprived of a <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014632.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BRACK Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We review a district court's determination as to whether a defendant is entitled to such a reduction with great deference for clear error. Because there was evidence that Brack continued to violate the law and engage in deceptive conduct while she was released on bond before her sentencing hearing. A defendant who pleads guilty and truthfully admits her conduct may still lose the adjustment through other conduct that is inconsistent with such acceptance of responsibility. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2333.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Charset=utf 8 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004931.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> THURSTON Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Thurston was convicted in 1997 of aiding and abetting credit card fraud. Because Thurston's underlying conviction was for a Class C felony. The statutory maximum sentence upon revocation of his supervised release was two years incarceration. THURSTON 3 history Category V is seven to thirteen months. Are not binding. We review the sentence only to determine whether it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/96-6213.ma2.html">ONISHEA V. HOPPER (4/7/1999, NO. 96-6213)<BR></A><BR> All of whom are prison inmates who have tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Have sued officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004242.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WRIGHT Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. This court will reverse a district court's imposition of an enhancement based on a defendant's abuse of a position of trust only if the court's determination is clearly erroneous. Because the determination of whether a defendant possessed a special skill that facilitated the commission of the offense is ordinarily factual. The court reviews the findings of the district court to determine if they are clearly erroneous. We have reviewed Wright's arguments and find that the district court's interpretation of the guidelines was correct and therefore the application of the enhancement appropriate. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064127np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm.1 Torres was indicted in November 2005 and in January 2006 he filed a motion to suppress a statement he had given to the authorities. The motion was denied. Torres first indicated that he was interested in entering a plea of guilty after the District Court denied his suppression motion. When an appellate waiver is upheld. Noting that it could not be said that the Government's refusal to move to grant Torres a third acceptance point was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1167.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jeffrey Cunningham pled guilty to one count of credit card fraud and was sentenced to serve eight months in prison followed by a three year term of supervised release. Explaining why there is no meritorious ground for appeal. We agree that there is no meritorious ground for appeal. We also note that the plea hearing conformed substantially to Rule 11 requirements and that any defect was harmless. P. 11(h) (variances from Rule 11 procedures which do not affect substantial rights are to be disregarded). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0693n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court decided to depart upward from that range on the ground that the defendant's criminal history was not adequately taken into account by the sentencing guidelines. The defendant argues on appeal that his sentence should be vacated for three reasons: (1) the upward departure was based on factual determinations made by a judge rather than a jury. (2) the district court was bound by the parties' sentencing recommendation. Citing a broad waiver of appellate rights that is contained in the plea agreement. The defendant contends that the waiver is unenforceable for reasons that significantly overlap the substantive grounds of his appeals. Phillips acknowledged that the guideline sentence range could not be established with certainty until a presentence report was prepared and any objections were resolved by the district court. Phillips also acknowledged that he would not have an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea if he received an unexpectedly severe sentence. 1029(c)(1)(A)(ii) was spelled out in the plea agreement.). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2186.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Ford pleaded guilty to credit card fraud charges and was sentenced to a prison term followed by thirty three months of supervised release. The supervised release was conditioned on several things. The motion stated only that the witnesses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612076.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No one will get hurt! Keene and his co conspirators were arrested soon after the last bank robbery following a tip from Arnold's mother to the FBI that her son was responsible for the string of robberies. Keene was indicted for three counts of taking money by force or intimidation from a financial institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984545.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 4545 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He was sentenced to thirty months imprisonment consecutive to his current sentence. Asserting two claims but concluding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Jeffrey Levering was an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beckley. Who was involved in a white supremacist group. Suspected that Hagar was falsely claiming he held a rank in another white supremacist group. Prison officials believed Levering was involved in the conflict. That he was smarting off to Johnson. That Levering was carrying the shank for Johnson as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-4129.htm">02-4129 -- U.S. V. PAISOLA -- 08/21/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <em><strong> </em></strong>Mr. He was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. Followed by thirty six months supervised release. <strong> </strong>This was to run concurrent with a sentence he was already serving for violating 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974695.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Olaseinda was convicted by a jury of five counts of credit card fraud and was sentenced to a term of 30 months incarceration. There are no meritorious issues for appeal. We find that the district court gave Olaseinda reasonable notice of the departure and counsel's challenge to the sentence on this ground is without merit. This issue was not raised in the district court at either sentencing or in the first appeal and may not be raised now. A criminal history category which underrepresents the defendant's past criminal conduct is an encouraged basis for departure. The district court found that a departure was appropriate because Olaseinda had received very light sentences for his two prior forgery convictions (probation and ninety days in jail). He had been deported three times and a fourth deportation order was pending factors which were unaccounted for in his criminal history calculation. We have examined the entire record in this case and find no reversible error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1600p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate Sally's sentence and remand the cause to the district court for it to determine whether Sally is entitled to a downward departure based on his post conviction rehabilitation efforts. I. Albert Sally was a bagger and look out for a crack conspiracy from August 1988 through February 1989. He was seventeen years old when he became involved in the conspiracy and he turned eighteen on November 2. Sally was indicted and convicted of drug charges as well as charges related to the use of a gun in drug trafficking. He was sentenced on December 17. Sally's convictions for using a gun during drug trafficking were 2 dismissed pursuant to a § 2255 motion. His sentence was vacated and a resentencing hearing held on September 24. Sally's counsel requested that the district court consider a downward departure based on a combination of two factors: (1) the fact that Sally was seventeen years old during half the time he participated in the conspiracy. (2) the fact that since he was first jailed. Reasoning as follows: I expressly conclude in the circumstances of this case I do not have the authority to depart downward . . .. </TD> </TR> </TABLE> <!-- End of real page content --> <!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer --> <P></P> <!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer --> <!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) --> <div id="footer"> <div class="footerNav"> <div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know --> <ul> <li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li> <li><a href="/tour.html" class="nav" id="liisitemaplink" title="lii sitemap">sitemap</a></li> <li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li> <li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">terms of use</a></li> </ul> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ridiculous div --> </div><!-- close footerNav --> </div><!-- close footer --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) --> <!-- end of included footer --> </BODY> </HTML> <!-- end of HTML --> <!-- code from here on down --> <!-- input arguments are: a query (optional) --> <!-- to begin with... This init block sets up and runs the query. --> <!-- select correct options based on scope -->