Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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 hotel or motel or restaurant and hospitality or service?

Your query (hotel or motel or restaurant) and (hospitality or service) returned 1937 results.

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

	OPINION/ORDER Who is white. Within minutes the motel discovered that the other members of Murrell's party were African American. The entire party was promptly evicted without explanation. We reverse because the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case and have proffered sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that the motel's stated reason for their eviction is pretext for discrimination. I. Because the plaintiffs were the nonmovants in the summary judgment proceedings. Murrell is white. The Littles are African American. They were unable to find accommodations at the first three motels they tried. Were in the office at the time. Charrier said that rooms were available. Charrier realized for the first time that the Murrell party was interracial.
	CAMP CREEK HOSPITALITY INNS, INC. V. SHERATON FRANCHISE CORP. (4/30/1998, NO. 95-8960) Circuit Judge: Defendant appellee's petition for rehearing is denied. Plaintiff Appellant's petition for rehearing is granted. 1997 and published at 130 F.3d 1009 is vacated. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof:
	CAMP CREEK HOSPITALITY INNS, INC. V. SHERATON FRANCHISE CORP. (4/30/1998, NO. 95-8960) Circuit Judge: Defendant appellee's petition for rehearing is denied. Plaintiff Appellant's petition for rehearing is granted. 1997 and published at 130 F.3d 1009 is vacated. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof:
	98-2247 -- ATKINSON TRADING CO. INC. V. SHIRLEY -- 05/02/2000 Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Jerome Wayne Johnson	03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM	07 12 2004


In re: Will C. Bowman	02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E	08 13 2003


In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v.
	OPINION/ORDER Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman	02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E	08 13 2003


In re: Will C. Cohen	03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM	07 08 2004


In re: Will C.
	OPINION/ORDER Skeeter was sworn in as a police officer on September 3. Skeeter was not told to target any particular individuals. Rather was directed to go out into the Circleville community. Cherrington was told to pack a bag. That this request was refused. Cherrington and Daija were taken from the motel and placed in a police car. Cherrington was taken to the Circleville police department for processing and placed in a cell. Her daughter Daija was released to a friend. Merely pretended to do so. 1 The local courts were closed on Monday. No. 01 3637 Cherrington was arraigned on drug trafficking charges. The Standards Governing This Appeal This case is on appeal from the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants. B. The Individual Defendants Are Protected by Qualified Immunity Against the § 1983 Claims Asserted by Daija King. Argued that they were shielded from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
	OPINION/ORDER Who was a member of this panel. Are issues not easily resolved by reference to existing state law. Because we agree with the district court that ITC lacks standing to pursue a false advertising claim against Although the term
	OPINION/ORDER We will affirm the District Court's orders as to all claims regarding the guilt phase of Marshall's trial. We will remand for further evidentiary development as to his claim that his attorney was ineffective in the penalty phase. Was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for having hired someone to murder his wife. Maria and her husband both were examined by a physician to qualify for an additional insurance policy. Marshall was hit on the head and Maria was fatally shot. We will reprise the facts at some length as they provide a necessary background for understanding much of our analysis. Marshall mentioned that he was seeking an out of town investigator to track missing casino winnings that he had given to his wife. Since Toms River was a small community where news traveled quickly. Marshall's only contact with McKinnon was through telephoning Cumber both at home and at the hardware store. McKinnon had a person whose name really was Jimmy Davis sign for the money each time. The numerous telephone conversations were.
	OPINION/ORDER The Trustees argue that the district court erred in: (1) determining that the Welfare Fund was not legally entitled to recover benefits paid to an ineligible employee in reliance on false statements made by Starlite. (2) concluding that only current Starlite employees could have colorable claims against the Pension Fund for benefits. (3) concluding that two current employees do not have colorable claims for pension benefits. Because the district court correctly determined that the Welfare Fund was not entitled to recover benefits paid to the ineligible employee. We will affirm the district court's order in part. Because we conclude that the district court failed to make factual findings and conclusions of law sufficient to determine whether the past and present employees of Starlite have colorable claims for pension and welfare benefits. We will reverse and remand on the remaining issues raised by the Trustees. I. The Local 4 69 Welfare Fund and the Local 4 69 Pension Fund (collectively
	OPINION/ORDER The critical issue in dispute is whether the State owns any protectible interest in the trademarks. Which were both built in the 1820s. Each building has a rich history: Casa de Pico was built by Pio Pico. While Casa de Bandini was built by a Peruvian immigrant of Italian descent who became a prominent San Diegan. The Casa de Pico building was operated as the
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that the City is not preempted from requiring parties receiving tax increment financing to sign a labor neutrality agreement. The URA is one of Pittsburgh's redevelopment authorities that serves as a
	OPINION/ORDER The face of American poverty is changing dramatically. Minimum wage workers are unable to support their families' basic needs. At A1 (
	UNITED STATES V. ALBERS This is a timely direct appeal from the defendant/appellant's conviction and life sentence for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Defendant Clayton Albers was originally indicted on February 24. James Randa was added as a conspirator in the second superseding indictment. Defendant Albers was convicted on all three counts of a third superseding indictment. Were involved in a venture to manufacture methamphetamine for distribution. Was the first prosecution witness. He was told by another inmate some of the basics of making methamphetamine. Cambron testified that defendant said he was interested and that if Cambron came up with the money he should call defendant. Including Cambron's idea of saying it was to be used as poultry feed and the suggestion discussed by defendant and Stuber that they could say it was to be used in the fertilizer business as a plant growth regulator. 000 was given to defendant by Marino for the cost of the chemical.
	OPINION/ORDER Because we are bound by our court's decision in Fuentes v. She was subsequently promoted to hostess in the Lobby Lounge. She was transferred to the Green Room restaurant and was promoted to head captain of the breakfast and lunch shifts.
	CAMP CREEK HOSPITALITY INNS, INC. V. SHERATON FRANCHISE CORP. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Camp Creek Hospitality Inns. We affirm in part and reverse in part.<p> Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/95-8960.man.html">CAMP CREEK HOSPITALITY INNS, INC. V. SHERATON FRANCHISE CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Camp Creek Hospitality Inns. We affirm in part and reverse in part.<p> Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B0D789626D52E6288256F32007C4BAD/$file/0216585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States Fish and Wildlife Service have violated numerous environmental and conservation oriented statutes. Background Fort Baker ( </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1757.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gordon</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005 is hereby published. A copy of the published opinion is attached. Plaintiff Appellant Mary Burnham was injured in a shower at the Super 8 Motel in Park City. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument <hr> sanction him for making </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-3376.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. HARDWELL<BR></A><BR> Royal Hopkins were charged with conspiring to possess two kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute in August 1993. 21 U.S.C. 846. Dennis was also charged in a separate indictment with possession of 7.9 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute in May 1992. The two cases were tried together at his request. There were two trials. Royal was acquitted in the first trial. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on Calvin and Myron. Found the remaining (1) As several defendants have the same last name. He became a suspect in larger scale illegal drug trafficking when police in Texas found two and one half kilograms of cocaine in the van he was driving. The cash was seized after a dog trained to detect illegal drugs by scent alerted them to it. 919 was found in a bag that had been checked with Dennis Hardwell's name tag. Was seized as abandoned after he denied ownership of the bag. The operation failed when Dennis learned his telephone conversations with an informant about delivery of the cocaine were being recorded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022340.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because there was no error in the ulti 4 U.S. We repeat only the facts that are relevant to the appeal. LLC and Nielsen Enterprises LLC will be referred to collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/983928P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The hotel is owned by Welk Investment. Which in turn is a franchisee of Choice Hotel International. Believing that she was a victim of sexual harassment on the job. The district court2 dismissed franchisor Choice Hotel because it found that Choice Hotel was not Thorne's employer. Dismissed Thorne's state law tort claims on the ground that they were preempted by Missouri Workers' Compensation Law. Thorne was hired as a desk clerk at a Nevada. Though it was obvious to her that Welk's interest in her was more than strictly professional. Thorne's suspicions were confirmed by a number of sexually suggestive comments and actions initiated by Welk. A representative sample will suffice: Welk tried to kiss Thorne. Welk called her on his car phone to ask if she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> End page heading. > <div align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199711/96-7270a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sheed were on brief. Are undisputed. 1992 the grievance was submitted to arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. What is the appropriate remedy? Id. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-14872.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BALLINGER (11/21/2002, NO. 01-14872)<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114872.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-14872.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BALLINGER (11/21/2002, NO. 01-14872)<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-1403a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jay P. With him on the brief were Arthur F. I. The Waterbury Sheraton Hotel was first opened in the mid 1980s by owners Joseph and Loretta Calabrese. Was certified as the bargaining representative of the hotel's service. Provided that Waterbury would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1403a.html">WATERBURY HOTEL MANAGEMENT V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Kamins argued the cause for petitioner.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were Jay P. Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were Arthur F. We deny the petition for review and grant the Board's cross application for enforcement. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>I. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Waterbury Sheraton Hotel was first opened in the mid 1980s by owners Joseph and Loretta Calabrese.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Calabreses also owned a hotel management company. Was certified as the bargaining representative of the hotel's service. Have no obli gation to hire any of the employees currently employed at the Hotel property. Applicants were first interviewed by ". In cluding all members of the Union's negotiating committee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span> Among those hired were three Yale undergraduates and one recent graduate whom. Our role in reviewing decisions of the National Labor Relations Board is limited.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We will set aside the Board's decision only if the Board ". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042255p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A house leased and used by CSG to provide caretaker services to three mentally retarded women residing there on the basis that the house was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1294.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for National Labor Relations Board. The claims of unfair labor practices arose in part from the conduct of a bankruptcy trustee who was in possession of the hotel at the time Horizons purchased it. The conclusions of the ALJ and the Board are contrary to law. Are not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that the Board's order adopting the ALJ's opinion and proposed order is without error and is to be enforced as it stands. STANDARD OF REVIEW The appropriate standard of review is provided in 10(e) of the Act. A finding of the Board that the Act has been violated is upheld </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></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-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021364.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was correct. The mark is registered in Monaco. Are five companies formed and controlled by a French national. Included in this roster are 53 web sites whose domain addresses incorporate some portion of the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043653p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge This is an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a lightning strike and fire that damaged Keil Hall on the campus of Mercersburg Academy. Is a private secondary and college preparatory boarding school located in Mercersburg. Keil Hall is a building located on the Mercersburg campus that was constructed over a century ago. The fourth floor was designed and constructed for dormitory use as well. That floor was used as attic and storage space. Was cordoned off from students.1 The chimney of Keil Hall was struck by lightning on June 13. While the dormitory rooms on the fourth floor were unoccupied at the time of the fire due to declining enrollment. (2) additional costs to repair the building that were made necessary to bring the building in compliance with applicable laws and various building codes. ] . . . we will pay for loss to the undamaged portion of the building caused by enforcement of any ordinance or law that: (a) requires demolition of parts of the same property not damaged by a Covered Cause of Loss. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5223a.html">AMFAC RESORTS, L.L.C V. U.S. DEPT OF INTERIOR<BR></A><BR> Geller argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/01-5223a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David M. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: These are four consolidated cases on appeal from the judgment of the district court sustaining regulations of the National Park Service governing concession contracts in the National Park System. Many of the issues are tied to the history of the National Park System and the functions concessioners perform in the operation of the parks. The history begins with the discovery of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6294.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On plaintiffs' claims that their loss of business income was covered by their Zurich policy. The losses were sustained because customers canceled their visits to hotels plaintiffs operated when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded all airplane (1) The Honorable John L. Who will be referred to collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI3OTNhbV9vcG4ucGRm/03-2793am_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was harmless error. BACKGROUND The facts of the case are derived largely from the factual account in the district court decision. Which in turn was drawn from the Appellate Division's decision affirming Zappulla's conviction. Zappulla was arrested at the Golden Gate Inn in Brooklyn. The police officers discovered the fur coat that was 2 reported stolen and the dead body of a prostitute. Was hit by a car and taken to the hospital. Zappulla was again questioned. Although this time he was not warned about his Miranda rights and was questioned about the more serious crime of murder. The 3 prosecutor emphasized how the confession was credible and tied in with other evidence in the case and how it provided vital evidence of motive. The court found that the confession was defective because 24 hours had elapsed between the initial questioning of Zappulla. Where Miranda warnings were given. Where the officers questioned him without Miranda warnings about a different crime and custody was not continuous. Found that failure to suppress the confession was harmless in light of 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://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9520.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review. While the security officers are in charge of policing the slot area. Each type of employee receives tips from customers and are required by casino policy to share these tips. The manner for sharing tips between slot technicians and security officers is the foundation of the dispute leading to this proceeding. All tips were pooled with half the tips going to slot technicians and the other half to security officers. A slot technician's share of the tip pool was smaller than a security officer's share. Tips were not first divided between the different groups of employees. One technician was fired and two others were suspended. The ALJ held that the employees who were (1) In its reply brief. See 29 U.S.C. 157 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1010.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1945p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will review a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Appellant is an orthopedic surgeon who. Which is a private. Which is defined as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/054071P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguments on appeal include claims that: there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. A Terry stop was constitutionally unreasonable and evidence found as a result of the stop should have been suppressed. Drug quantity calculations at sentencing were clearly erroneous. Prior convictions were improperly used to enhance sentences. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1539.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for appellant.</span><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Lance J. Argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John M. <span class=SpellE>Whealan</span></u>. Associate Solicitor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Cynthia C. The Board concluded that the mark was primarily geographically deceptively <span class=SpellE>misdescriptive</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>In re Les <span class=SpellE>Halles</span> De Paris J.V.</u>. As the name for Les <span class=SpellE>Halles</span> restaurant in <st1:State><st1:place>New Yor </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/01-1433a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012792P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He told the men he was evicting them from the hotel for refusing to return to their room and informed them that they had ten minutes to gather their things and exit the premises. Young was so intoxicated he does not recall the events of the evening. Young's friends claim that Adcock never told them they were evicted. When it appeared to Adcock that the men were not going to leave the hotel. Which was propped open. Yelled out that he was hotel security and asked if anyone was in the room. Adcock could see that someone (Young) was in the bed in the bedroom and he announced his presence once again. Apparently was disoriented and attempted to return to sleep on the bed. The charges against Young were ultimately dismissed by the prosecutor. Alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by Officers Harrison and Asscherick because they illegally entered his hotel room and used excessive force against him. Summary judgment is properly granted when. It is clear no genuine issue of material fact remains and the case A sternum rub is accomplished by applying pressure with the knuckles upon a person's sternum. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1063.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Frank J. With him on the brief was Lile H. Which was opened in 1898 by César Ritz. The Ritz Hotel is one of the most luxurious and renowned hotels in the world. These products are sold under a variety of registered marks. Which was derived from its founder's last name. Shen's appeal is moot. 04 1063. The board found that while shower curtains are closely related to Shen's products. RHL's PUTTING ON THE RITZ mark is dissimilar to Shen's RITZ mark in terms of appearance. Again the board found that the goods described in RHL's applications were related to Shen's goods. That the differences in the marks were sufficient to prevent any likelihood of confusion. Finding that there was a likelihood of confusion because cooking classes require the use of kitchen textiles. 1076 that gloves are too related to barbeque mitts considering the similarity of the marks. Whether there is a likelihood of confusion is a question of law based on underlying facts. The PTO may refuse to register a trademark that is so similar to a registered mark </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0049p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Defendant/Appellant Floyd Bruce was charged in a four count indictment with three counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and one count of unauthorized use of an access device in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5). All of these charges were based largely upon evidence found in a search of hotel rooms rented by Defendant at the time of his arrest. Defendant understood that he was pleading guilty to an offense which carries a maximum term of imprisonment up to 30 years. Defendant was listed Notably. The underlying transcript of this suppression hearing was not included in the joint appendix provided by the parties on appeal. We have obtained a copy of the transcript of this May 30. Have confirmed that it is consistent with the facts as set forth in the parties' briefs on appeal and in the district court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress. 1 No. 03 3110 United States v. Bruce Page 3 as the renter of room 316 and Ritter was recorded as the renter of room 320. The hotel manager contacted the Blue Ash Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1086.html">PHONOMETRICS INC V. HOSPITALITY FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <U>J. Representing AMFAC Resorts was <U>Frederick Brown</U>. Of counsel for RHI Hotels Inc. were <U>Jeffrey G. Of counsel for Aston Hotels and Resorts was <U>David K. This court reverses and remands.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955207.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. One of whom was noticeably taller and larger than the other. One of the men was wearing a sweatshirt with a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="391"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-1484a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Linda Sher. I. When Reno Hilton began operating what was formerly a Bally's hotel restaurant casino complex in 1992. The members of which were not repre sented by any labor organization. While those charges were pending. An election was scheduled for September 1995. Was called into the office of Reno Hilton's director of security. The Burk Group official asked Parillo to help determine which security employees were pro or anti union. The Union won the election by a vote of 44 to 33 and was certified by the Board on October 12. Bennett's impression after that meeting was that Reno Hilton </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="391"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1484a.html">RENO HILTON RESORTS V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> With him on the </p> <p>brief were Linda Sher. We deny the petition for review and </p> <p>grant the Board's cross application for enforcement of the </p> <p>order.</p> <p>I.</p> <p>When Reno Hilton began operating what was formerly a </p> <p>Bally's hotel restaurant casino complex in 1992. The members of which were not repre </p> <p>sented by any labor organization. While those charges were pending. An election was scheduled </p> <p>for September 1995. Was called into the office of Reno Hilton's director </p> <p>of security. The Burk Group official asked Parillo to help </p> <p>determine which security employees were pro or anti union. The hotel would </p> <p>contract out the security jobs and showing Parillo figures </p> <p>purporting to represent the associated cost savings.</p> <p>The Union won the election by a vote of 44 to 33 and was </p> <p>certified by the Board on October 12. </p> <p>Bennett's impression after that meeting was that Reno Hilton </p> <p>". May have lost the battle. The unit security employees] were gone.". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DA09472925E6A2A88256DC0005504B4/$file/0150461.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether the district court clearly erred in finding that her consent was voluntary. Soriano challenges the sentence he was given on the ground that the district court erred in calculating the appropriate loss amount for sentencing purposes. Officers from the Los Angeles Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D1A8F80C8F439B2988256E530077DAA2/$file/0150461.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are amended as follows: The opinion is amended by adding a new footnote 4. At this stage we are not inclined to redraft our majority opinion to respond in a more comprehensive fashion. Instead will simply state that we disagree with her analysis. The dissent incorrectly asserts that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042134p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement is not applicable here. We will reverse the District Court's denial of Coles's suppression motion. We will vacate Coles's conviction and sentence and remand for further proceedings. Bradley let 3 himself into Coles's room to see if the room was still occupied. The government concedes that this entry was illegal and does not rely on anything seen on this visit in establishing probable cause for the subsequent warrantless The record is inconsistent as to the details of Bradley's initial observations inside room 511. [Bradley] said he observed what he thought was drugs and. Things of items related to drugs and what he thought was a holster. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted and sentenced for The Honorable James L. Hernandez was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder by supporting and implementing a plan to shoot down United States civilian aircraft outside of Cuban and United States airspace. That the pervasive community prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government and its agents and the publicity surrounding the trial and other community events combined to create a situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial.1 We agree. Medina contend that the evidence was insufficient on the counts relating to violations of the Foreign Services Registration Act. Our review of the evidence at trial is more extensive than is typical for consideration of an appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of venue. This is so because the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate venue considerations. Medina were arrested on a criminal complaint on 12 September 1998. Were subsequently indicted with nine codefendants for conspiring to act as agents of the Republic of Cuba without registering with the Attorney General of the United States and to defraud the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3745.html">KING V. ERICKSON<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-4098.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ (7/14/2000, NO. 99-4098)<BR></A><BR> Two elements are essential for a Hobbs Act prosecution: robbery and an effect on commerce. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 1. The district court's denial of the motions for a judgment of acquittal will be upheld if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence establishes the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-4098.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ (7/14/2000, NO. 99-4098)<BR></A><BR> Two elements are essential for a Hobbs Act prosecution: robbery and an effect on commerce. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 1. The district court's denial of the motions for a judgment of acquittal will be upheld if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence establishes the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1501.html">PHONOMETRICS V. WESTIN<BR></A><BR> For defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Vito J. Page break after:avoid'>BACKGROUND</p> <p class=MsoBodyText><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>Westin is one of a number of hotel companies sued in the mid 1990s by Phonometrics.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In the actions. Of the hotel cases is the call cost register means. In part on the ground that the manufacturer introduced evidence that the accused peripheral systems did not and could not provide cost information about calls while the calls were in progress. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Phonometrics. Cir. 1998) (Table).<spa </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-7228a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The governing legal principles are well known. Our review of district court decisions on motions for judgment as a matter of law is de novo. The jury's verdict will stand unless </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-5913.man.html">STEVENS V. PREMIER CRUISES (6/22/2000, NO. 98-5913)<BR></A><BR> Who is largely confined to a wheelchair. Was assured that Plaintiff's cabin would be wheelchair accessible. Was required to pay a fee in excess of the advertised price to obtain a purportedly wheelchair accessible cabin.</P> <P> Plaintiff boarded the ship in Florida for her cruise. Plaintiff discovered that her cabin was not. Plaintiff also found that many public areas of the cruise ship were inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs. Plaintiff was </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-5913.man.html">STEVENS V. PREMIER CRUISES (6/22/2000, NO. 98-5913)<BR></A><BR> Who is largely confined to a wheelchair. Was assured that Plaintiff's cabin would be wheelchair accessible. Was required to pay a fee in excess of the advertised price to obtain a purportedly wheelchair accessible cabin.</P> <P> Plaintiff boarded the ship in Florida for her cruise. Plaintiff discovered that her cabin was not. Plaintiff also found that many public areas of the cruise ship were inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs. Plaintiff was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FD89E0111BECD15888256D8E005A3A94/$file/0230079.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were socializing at Pioneer Park. When approximately nine white supremacists who were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-5373a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/031119p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> National Park Service after Richard was injured while bodysurfing in the Virgin Islands. We have jurisdiction to review the summary judgment order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is a question of law. 429 (3d Cir. 1991) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031119p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> National Park Service after Richard was injured while bodysurfing in the Virgin Islands. We have jurisdiction to review the summary judgment order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is a question of law. 429 (3d Cir. 1991) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1995/95a1205p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether under New Jersey law a casino patron may recover from a casino for gambling losses caused by the casino's conduct in serving alcoholic beverages to the patron and allowing the patron to continue to gamble after it becomes obvious that the patron is intoxicated. That while he gambled he was served free alcoholic beverages until he became intoxicated. The appeals were consolidated. Our task in this appeal is to predict whether the Supreme Court of New Jersey would recognize claims such as those asserted by the plaintiff. For neither the Supreme Court of New Jersey nor the Appellate Division has addressed the question that is now before us or any closely related question. Because the question is both difficult and important. Therefore we are relegated to predicting what the Supreme Court of New Jersey would do if it were confronted with this question.[fn2] While we are required to venture this prediction and while we recognize the need to issue a published opinion for the guidance of the district courts in the circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1559p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Was hired as a room attendant at the New York Marquis Marriott in 1985. She was promoted to Assistant Housekeeping Manager. She was promoted to Housekeeping Manager at the Park Ridge Marriott in New Jersey. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1868p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing Ford's complaint even though we differ with the district court by finding Ford eligible to file suit under Title I of the ADA. I. The facts concerning the plaintiff's employment and her disability are not in dispute. Ford was an employee of Schering from 1975 until May of 1992. When she became disabled by virtue of a mental disorder and was unable to continue her employment. The plan mandated that benefits cease after two years if the disabled employee was not hospitalized. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review over the district court's order is plenary. Because the facts of this case are not in dispute. Whether Ford is even eligible to sue under the ADA. We will address Ford's claims under Titles I and III seriatim. The defendants' group insurance plan is a fringe benefit of employment at Schering. We must first ascertain whether Ford is eligible tofile suit under Title I. The question of standing is not at issue in this case. Which is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1670p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Profession or trade </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0126p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was sexually harassed and constructively discharged. The district court held that the arbitration provision is invalid as a matter of Tennessee law because it is an unconscionable contract of adhesion and is insufficiently bilateral. Invalid as a matter of federal law because it did not make clear that Cooper was waiving her right to a jury trial. No. 02 5702 The district court also held that the arbitration provision is unenforceable. I. BACKGROUND Terry Rogers and Larry Mays are the sole shareholders of MRM. The then prevailing rules of the [FAA]) will apply. The parties agree MRM did not separately advise Cooper that she was giving up her right to a jury trial. She was forced to quit in August 2000. Standard of Review We review de novo the district court's holding that the arbitration agreement is invalid and unenforceable. Will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous: If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety. It would have No. 02 5702 Cooper v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6065.htm">97-6065 -- MOORE V. REYNOLDS -- 07/13/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Moore was convicted of robbery in 1978 and served three and a half years in state confinement. Where Alex Fernandez was working the night shift. He was unsuccessful. Moore called Fernandez to ask if there were any rooms available. Moore told Caster she was to open the cash register while he tied and gagged Fernandez. <p> Moore and Caster drove to the Airline Motel and parked behind the motel. As Caster was attempting to wipe away her fingerprints. There was no answer and they drove to a cafe. Moore said </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="357"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/97-7040a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is brought by the Boards of Trustees of two employee benefit plans. (We will refer to the two plans as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1531_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a suit to enjoin enforcement of Chapter 31 of the General Ordinances of Milwaukee County. Primarily on the ground that the chapter is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. (We will not have to discuss the plaintiff's other grounds.). Chapter 31 requires firms that have contracts with the County for the provision of transportation and other services for elderly and disabled County residents to negotiate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="345"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2322.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. That there was substantial disparity between the sentences given him and his co defendant. Hotel management was engaged in difficult collective bargaining negoti ations with the Teamsters Union. Jimenez and Rivera were indicted for their roles in the fire. Rendered inef fective assistance.1 The gist of Rivera's claim is that Inserni failed to interview favorable witnesses and to investigate his defenses adequately. Rivera must show that Inserni's performance fell below an objec tive standard of reasonableness and that Inserni's inadequate performance prejudiced him that there is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="345"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5397a.html">AMER PSTL WRKR UN V. USPS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-7091.wpd.html">HOLLINGSWORTH V. HILL<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND The following facts are not in dispute. While her husband was gone. Received a copy of the Order he was to serve on Patricia Hollingsworth. Was frequently required to serve protective orders and summonses but was uncertain what this Order required him to do. The fifth item in the Order stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/99-12813.op3.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0282p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Packaged them for the retail consumer. 3M is a manufacturing powerhouse. It was NicSand's only competing supplier of DIY retail automotive coated abrasives and now. It is a monopolist of what NicSand alleges to be a distinct economic market. The wholesale and retail markets for DIY retail automotive abrasives are small and highly concentrated. Although the retailers were not contractually bound to stay with a particular supplier. The gravamen of the Amended Complaint is that 3M monopolized and attempted to monopolize the abrasives market through the exclusivity provisions of the contracts that the discounts accompanied. It is possible to draw certain conclusions from the allegations. The complaint notes that sales by the six largest retailers accounted for 80% of the retail market and that 3M executed exclusive contracts with four leaving only Wal Mart (which was subject to the wrap around program) and Pep Boys as possible distributors for NicSand's products. This change would have increased 3M's (retail) market share from 20% to 73% (assuming that NicSand and 3M split the Pep Boys's business evenly). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/99-12813.op3.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="335"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After that appeal was taken. A copy of that order is attached as an Appendix to this opinion. We now have before us the plaintiffs' appeal from the order denying that second motion for a temporary restraining order. 2 Our prior decision in this case brings into play the law of the case doctrine insofar as issues we addressed in our March 23. 2005 opinion are concerned. [the resolution of] an issue decided at one stage of a case is binding at later stages of the same case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963240.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: The primary issue in this case is whether appellant driver legitimately expected Fourth Amendment level privacy in an overdue rental car that the rental company had not repossessed at the time of law enforcement's warrantless search. The contract specified January 20 as the return due date and West Palm Beach as the return location.1 The contract also included the following terms and conditions: 14) VEHICLE RETURN: Renter is responsible for returning the Vehicle in the same condition as when received. If it is not returned when due. Is illegally parked. Is used in violation of law or of this Agreement. Or if Renter provides false or misleading information at time of rental. 16) FAILURE TO RETURN VEHICLE: If the Vehicle is not returned when due or within 24 hours after written or oral demand by Budget. 1 All dates correspond with 1996 unless otherwise stated. 2 Renter will be in unlawful possession of the Vehicle. Written demand is considered delivered 48 hours after Budget mails a certified letter to Renter at the home or business address Renter provides at time of rental. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/003142.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-3240.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COOPER (1/26/1998, NO. 96-3240)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The primary issue in this case is whether appellant driver legitimately expected Fourth Amendment level privacy in an overdue rental car that the rental company had not repossessed at the time of law enforcement's warrantless search. The contract specified January 20 as the return due date and West Palm Beach as the return location.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-3240.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COOPER (1/26/1998, NO. 96-3240)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The primary issue in this case is whether appellant driver legitimately expected Fourth Amendment level privacy in an overdue rental car that the rental company had not repossessed at the time of law enforcement's warrantless search. The contract specified January 20 as the return due date and West Palm Beach as the return location.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963240.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: The primary issue in this case is whether appellant driver legitimately expected Fourth Amendment level privacy in an overdue rental car that the rental company had not repossessed at the time of law enforcement's warrantless search. The contract specified January 20 as the return due date and West Palm Beach as the return location.1 The contract also included the following terms and conditions: 1 All dates correspond with 1996 unless otherwise stated. 14) VEHICLE RETURN: Renter is responsible for returning the Vehicle in the same condition as when received. If it is not returned when due. Is illegally parked. Is used in violation of law or of this Agreement. Or if Renter provides false or misleading information at time of rental. 16) FAILURE TO RETURN VEHICLE: If the Vehicle is not returned when due or within 24 hours after written or oral demand by Budget. Renter will be in unlawful possession of the Vehicle. Written demand is considered delivered 48 hours after Budget mails a certified letter to Renter at the home or business address Renter provides at time of rental. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2324.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <U>Melba Rivera Camacho</U> was on brief. Were on brief. Bockius LLP</U> were on brief. Race or gender) is usually not at issue. The law of disability discrimination often presents a threshold question of whether a plaintiff is in fact disabled. This question frequently arises when the plaintiff is suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1797p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Local 54 Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963045.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse the convictions of one alleged gang member because the evidence against him was insufficient. The birthday party was for a friend of Phung's named Conghau Huu To (To). When asked at trial about any money that might have been taken from Khanh Quoc Le during the attempted robbery. T.X. testified that An Thanh Le told him that Khanh Quoc Le did not have any money. 3 1 On May 23. The brothers who come from Atlanta will stay with us in Tampa. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963045.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse the convictions of one alleged gang member because the evidence against him was insufficient. The birthday party was for a friend of Phung's named Conghau Huu To (To). To told T.X. and Tony that they should not deal with An Thanh Le anymore because To suspected An Thanh Le of conspiring with When asked at trial about any money that might have been taken from Khanh Quoc Le during the attempted robbery. T.X. testified that An Thanh Le told him that Khanh Quoc Le did not have any money. 2 1 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The brothers who come 3 from Atlanta will stay with us in Tampa. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-3045.man.html">UNITED STATES V. TO (6/23/1998, NO. 96-3045)<BR></A><BR> We reverse the convictions of one alleged gang member because the evidence against him was insufficient.</P> <P><CENTER>I. The birthday party was for a friend of Phung's named Conghau Huu To (To). The brothers who come from Atlanta will stay with us in Tampa. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-3045.man.html">UNITED STATES V. TO (6/23/1998, NO. 96-3045)<BR></A><BR> We reverse the convictions of one alleged gang member because the evidence against him was insufficient.</P> <P><CENTER>I. The birthday party was for a friend of Phung's named Conghau Huu To (To). The brothers who come from Atlanta will stay with us in Tampa. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1351a.html">NEW YORK NEW YORK, LLC, V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Moss argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="324"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/003366.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The arbitration forum designated in the collective bargaining agreement is an inappropriate vehicle by which to settle the parties' dispute. We will affirm the District Court's order which enjoins the Union and the American Arbitration Association from including AmeriSteel as a party in pending arbitration proceedings. Yet the arbitrator is powerless to enforce these obligations because they are not binding on the successor employer. Facts and Procedural Background Appellee AmeriSteel is a Florida corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of steel products. The purchase agreement between 3 AmeriSteel and Brocker Rebar included various provisions expressly stating that AmeriSteel was not to be bound by the terms of the CBA. AmeriSteel has consistently and repeatedly maintained that it is not bound by the terms of the CBA. Therefore that it is not bound to arbitrate under the agreement. All but six members of Local 430 who had worked for Brocker Rebar were hired by AmeriSteel. AmeriSteel was obligated to bargain with the Union. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1737.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hotel and the Roxy are separate businesses. The Roxy is owned and operated by\ the Boston Ballroom Corporation.</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote2 = '<span class= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/99-1547.htm">99-1547 -- WEINMAN V. FIDELITY CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND -- 01/14/2004<BR></A><BR> P. 23(b)(1)(A) class was improper. (4) the settlement was not fairly negotiated. Is unfair. (6) the bankruptcy court erred in denying a dispositive motion seeking to dismiss this action on any of four separate grounds set forth in the motion (more specifically described below). <p> These issues are substantially identical to the ones raised in <u>Integra I</u>. The appellants here further assert that they and the <u>Integra I</u> appellants have </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/alpha-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER The five defendants were arrested. Were The defendants raised the following additional issues on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct regarding the testimony of a government witness and during closing argument. Guerrero were also charged with conspiring to deliver to Cuba
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Celeste M. With him on the brief were Arthur F. McCracken were on the brief for intervenor. Circuit Judge: The issue in these consolidated petitions for review of orders of the National Labor Relations Board is whether employees of contractors working on a casino's property have labor organizing rights equivalent to those possessed by the casino's employees. New York New York Hotel and Casino is located on the Strip in Las Vegas. When they are off duty. The bars are off limits at all times. The following events were part of that campaign. Told the Ark employees that they were trespassing and that they were not allowed to distribute literature on NYNY's property. (All of the trespass citations issued to the Ark employees in 1998 were dropped.). Their s 7 rights are equivalent to those of the employer's own employees. Agreeing that the s 7 rights of the Ark employees were equivalent to those of NYNY's employees. That in both cases the Ark employees were engaging in organization activities in non work areas of NYNY's property.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the brief for the respondents. Rush were on the brief for amicus curiae the Association of American Railroads. The Hours of Service law is now codified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 2110121108. It is administered by the Secretary of Transportation. The decision was upheld. The Union petitions for judicial review and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2342(7). The original text was substantially in its current form. Only if the sleeping quarters are clean. In which railroad switching or humping operations are performed. 49 U.S.C. § 21106. Clause (2) (
	UNITED STATES V. ODOM (5/31/2001, NO. 98-6241) The church which the Defendants were convicted of burning. Contending that the indictment insufficiently defined the elements of the offense and the jury's verdict was inconsistent. Which was just down the road. (2) natural gas used to heat the church was purchased in Alabama. (4) the church was a dues paying member of the First Eastern Shore Missionary Baptist Church Association. There was no evidence that any member of St. There was no evidence that any interstate traveler had ever visited St. Defense counsel moved to set aside the jury's verdict with respect to the § 844(h)(1) conspiracy conviction on the ground that the verdict was inconsistent. This principle requires that a decision on a constitutional question is appropriate only after addressing the statutory questions.
	OPINION/ORDER The church which the Defendants were convicted of burning. Contending that the indictment insufficiently defined the elements of the offense and the jury's verdict was inconsistent. Which was just down the road. (2) natural gas used to heat the church was purchased in Alabama. (4) the church was a dues paying member of the First Eastern Shore Missionary Baptist Church Association. There was no evidence that any member of St. There was no evidence that any interstate traveler had ever visited St. Defense counsel moved to set aside the jury's verdict with respect to the § 844(h)(1) conspiracy conviction on the ground that the verdict was inconsistent. This principle requires that a decision on a constitutional question is appropriate only after addressing the statutory questions. Rather § 844(i) is limited to buildings used in interstate commerce. Joseph's Church was used in interstate commerce or an activity affecting interstate commerce. The Jones court set forth the method to determine whether damage or destruction of a building is properly prosecutable under § 844(i).
	UNITED STATES V. ODOM (5/31/2001, NO. 98-6241) The church which the Defendants were convicted of burning. Contending that the indictment insufficiently defined the elements of the offense and the jury's verdict was inconsistent. Which was just down the road. (2) natural gas used to heat the church was purchased in Alabama. (4) the church was a dues paying member of the First Eastern Shore Missionary Baptist Church Association. There was no evidence that any member of St. There was no evidence that any interstate traveler had ever visited St. Defense counsel moved to set aside the jury's verdict with respect to the § 844(h)(1) conspiracy conviction on the ground that the verdict was inconsistent. This principle requires that a decision on a constitutional question is appropriate only after addressing the statutory questions.
	MEIER V. SUN INT'L HOTELS, LTD. (4/19/2002, NO. 01-14431) Plaintiffs were vacationing on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Victor was struck by a commercial motorboat and sustained massive injuries. Victor was airlifted to Miami. He survived but lost his arm and was permanently disfigured. The Meiers subsequently filed this diversity action
	MEIER V. SUN INT'L HOTELS, LTD. (4/19/2002, NO. 01-14431) Plaintiffs were vacationing on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Victor was struck by a commercial motorboat and sustained massive injuries. Victor was airlifted to Miami. He survived but lost his arm and was permanently disfigured. The Meiers subsequently filed this diversity action
	OPINION/ORDER Ugol were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Bean were on the brief for amici curiae Center for Marine Conservation. Hawkins were on the brief for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation. Kamenar were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation. III was on the brief for amicus curiae American Land Foundation. Which is located only in California. An insect that is native to the San Bernardino area of California. The habitat of which is located entirely within an eight mile radius in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County. The district court held that application of section 9(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act to the Fly is a valid exercise of Congress' power pursuant to the Commerce Clause. We affirm the district court's decision to grant the government's motion for summary judgment.1 1 Summary judgment is appropriate when all of the submissions
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs were vacationing on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Victor was struck by a commercial motorboat and sustained massive injuries. Victor was airlifted to Miami. He survived but lost his arm and was permanently disfigured. Plaintiffs claimed that the Sun Defendants were partially responsible for the motorboat and. The motorboat was owned and operated by a It is undisputed that the district court had original subject matter jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Utah and the Defendants are foreign Bahamian corporations. The Plaintiffs requested that the court dismiss the Sheraton claims without prejudice in order to pursue this appeal. 3 2 1 Bahamian water sports vendor conducting business at the Atlantis Hotel and Casino (
	OPINION/ORDER Is substituted for her predecessor. Chief Judge: Robert Henry Moormann was convicted in Arizona of the first degree murder of his elderly adoptive mother and sentenced to death in 1985. This is an appeal from the district court's denial of his first federal petition for habeas corpus relief. Was not compatible with the Sixth Amendment. 536 U.S. at 589. The Supreme Court held that Ring is not retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review. We have received and considered those briefs and this case can now be decided. Does not apply to cases which were pending at the time AEDPA became effective. It is undisputed that Arizona has not
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Appellant Jose Alfredo Perez Lopez (
	OPINION/ORDER Where Williams was staying. They went to a 7 Eleven where Owens was sweeping the parking lot. Saying:
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Brown alleged that she was sexually assaulted at the conclusion of a social activity. The conference was held in a hotel. Although employment matters were discussed during the event. Her attendance was not a requirement of her employment. 1 The Board did not address the merits of the appeal. All appeals to the Board relating to claims under the Act were deemed to have been affirmed if the case had been pending before the Board for one year by September 12. For purposes of their rights to obtain review in this court. 2 Boyd is a higher ranking employee of the Employer although not in Brown's direct chain of command. 2 After the other guests had left the hospitality suite. Boyd opened the door and allowed her to leave the room.3 Brown contends that she is disabled by post traumatic stress disorder arising from this incident. The ALJ determined that Brown was not required to attend the social event and that Boyd's statement regarding his desire to discuss work was insufficient to transform the conversation into employment activity.
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that Humphries could not establish his prima facie burden of showing that a similarly situated individual in a non protected class was treated more favorably. 2 No. 05 4047 We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment as to Humphries's retaliation claim because Humphries made a sufficient showing under the indirect method to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under section 1981. I. BACKGROUND The following facts are recounted in the light most favorable to Humphries. Was an associate manager at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Bradley. Associate managers at Cracker Barrel are supervised by a general manager. Who in turn is supervised by a district manager. His performance during his first two and a half years (roughly February 1999 through midJuly 2001) was generally excellent. Such as stating that all African Americans are
	UNITED STATES V. RHIND (4/23/2002, NO. 01-14168) Willard later admitted to the court that he knew that the weapons were in the car the day prior to his arrest.
	UNITED STATES V. RHIND (4/23/2002, NO. 01-14168) Willard later admitted to the court that he knew that the weapons were in the car the day prior to his arrest.
	OPINION/ORDER I. The basic facts in the case are these: In May 1994. Jawaid repeatedly forced her to have oral. Norelus also said Jawaid forced her to have sex with his roommate. Valladares said she also visited the two Denny's restaurants where Norelus claimed to have been abused. Valladares said a Denny's employee told her (in Valladares's words) that 3 Jawaid
	OPINION/ORDER Daley & White were on brief. Grasso and Mortensen were on brief. We hold that the FDIC has no such shield and is liable. The units in the Hotel were marketed and sold by the University Bank and Trust Company and the other defendants as
	OPINION/ORDER Garrett was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty or more grams of crack cocaine. In violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. a new trial were denied. Garrett was sentenced to 360 He months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release on each charge. Was assessed a $25. That prior acts of a co defendant were improperly admitted by the trial court. banc denied (Jan. 15. She gave her name as Gloria Hernandez and admitted She later admitted that that she was smuggling crack cocaine in her luggage. A search of which revealed almost eight kilograms of crack cocaine. her true name was Alicia Rodriguez. The conviction was affirmed. Were to check into a downtown motel
	N:\DOCS\E-DOS\9-9\04-3530+-CAHALAN V. ROHAN.WPD BACKGROUND Rohan and Cahalan were both employed by the New Jersey law firm McCarter and English. The firm was helping to administer a nationwide class action settlement. Cahalan and Rohan were sent to Minnesota to instruct and supervise telephone operators answering settlement related questions. They were scheduled to remain in Fairbault. Rohan and Cahalan were driving back to their hotel in the evening in Rohan's rented vehicle. Rohan attempted to make a left turn when his view of oncoming traffic was partially obscured by a semi tractor The Honorable Paul A. Alleging that UPS and the driver of the van were directly and vicariously liable for his injuries. That Rohan was negligent or grossly negligent in turning without observing approaching traffic. Holding that Cahalan failed as a matter of law to show that the van driver was negligent. Finding that it was barred by the NJWCA. Contending that the dismissal should have been with prejudice. If an injury is compensable under workers' compensation in New Jersey.
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. in her claim for injuries she sustained when she was struck by a vehicle while reclining on a beach chair on the public beach next to the Aruba Grand Beach Resort and Casino. Lienhart was vacationing at the Aruba Grand at the time of her injury. The resort is located next to the public beach. Lienhart and a friend were spending the day relaxing. The chairs were located in the row closest to the ocean. Lienhart was asleep in a lounge chair when. She was struck by a pickup truck and boat trailer operated by an employee of Unique Sports of Aruba. The boat and trailer were backing up along the beach. *Honorable John R. Unique Sports loads them on trailers that are pulled by pick up trucks and driven back and forth from the dock to its storage facility at the Aruba Grand. No barricades or other devices separate the tiki huts from the rest of the beach where there is traffic. Inc. and another corporate defendant that was later dismissed. Both of which are Florida corporations. Only Caribbean remained by the time dispositive motions were filed in the district court.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. This case is the sequel to United States v. Woodward claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the four counts. Woodward was first elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1977. He was assigned to the Joint Committee on Insurance (
	OPINION/ORDER David Trammell was accused of stealing a service station tow truck and using it to steal another vehicle. His defense was that another man Scott Cross committed the crime and framed him. When a tow truck was stolen from an Amoco service station in Overland Park. Loper testified that he saw the thief's face twice: once for
	OPINION/ORDER Finding that she was not protected by either absolute or qualified immunity. Because Keller Burnside's actions were prosecutorial functions
	OPINION/ORDER Willard later admitted to the court that he knew that the weapons were in the car the day prior to his arrest. Were in possession of a stolen vehicle and counterfeit currency and were staying in Room 227 of a Motel 6 in Tallahassee. They also argued that the presence of the firearms was merely incidental to the counterfeiting offense. The district court found (1) that Bret and Scott's possession of the firearms was not an accident or coincidence. (3) that they could have easily obtained ammunition for the shotgun. The officer did not have justifiable suspicion to search the black bag. They posit that the officer could have squeezed the soft sided bag to determine if it contained a weapon. They contend that the officer's search was unlawful. Bret was the first to exit the motel room. The district court correctly found that the search of the black bag was justified under Terry. The officers had a reasonable and objective suspicion that Bret was involved in criminal activity. They did not know which man was Willard.
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. The following facts are undisputed. Darlene Jespersen was a bartender at the sports bar in Harrah's Casino in Reno. She was an outstanding employee. Jespersen's supervisors commented that she was
	OPINION/ORDER This matter is before the court on Appellees' Motion for Clarification and Appellant's Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc. The motion for clarification is granted. A revised order and judgment is attached. Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service as required by Fed. That petition is also denied. Notified DWG that it was infringing on RUFI's mark. Prime
	97-3203 -- PENRY V. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF TOPEKA -- 09/15/1998 Waggoner was not the plaintiffs' immediate supervisor at FHLB. He did have supervisory authority over the collateral assistants during the out of town inspection trips. He intentionally gave hotel clerks the impression that he and Gillum were to share a room. While Penry was on business travel with Waggoner in March 1990. He asked her if women have wet dreams. While Waggoner and Gillum were on a business trip together in April 1990. A restaurant whose marketing theme is based on its well endowed female waiting staff. Gillum was unaware of this feature of the restaurant until after they arrived. Waggoner told Penry that her bra strap was showing but then said. Waggoner asked Penry what she was wearing under her dress and laughed when she said she did not appreciate the comment. Waggoner pointed out to each of the plaintiffs that the roof of a particular mall was shaped like a woman's breasts. Waggoner would often (at least twice a week) stand and stare at her while she was working. Waggoner called one of the other female review assistants over to where he and Penry and Gillum were gathered by demanding.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER The District Court held that the government did not have probable cause to search Luong's residence. That suppression of the fruits of this search was UNITED STATES v. The government concedes the search was not supported by probable cause but contends that the warrant contained sufficient indicia of probable cause to render the officers' reliance on the warrant objectively reasonable. We agree with the District Court that the warrant in this case was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that a reasonably well trained officer could not have relied on it in good faith. The affidavit asserted the following: that a multi agency investigation of Chun Ying Jao was underway. That the Hong Kong office of the DEA had informed the Los Angeles office that
	OPINION/ORDER PER CURIAM: Defendant Daniel McGuinness plead guilty to escape and was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment. Arguing that the two level sentence enhancement for
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is the arbitrability of alleged violations of an agreement between Plaintiffs Appellants Service Employees International Union (
	OPINION/ORDER The district court's jurisdiction was grounded upon 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a). Murillo was convicted of both the conspiracy count and the participation count. Other alleged errors were briefed and argued. The three hired hands were to help MacGuigan find a job and obtain a divorce attorney.
	OPINION/ORDER The ill fated flight was part of a bi weekly shuttle operated by Executive Airlines (
	OPINION/ORDER The district court's jurisdiction was grounded upon 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a). Murillo was convicted of both the conspiracy count and the participation count. Other alleged errors were briefed and argued. The three hired hands were to help MacGuigan find a job and obtain a divorce attorney.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court erred in finding that the government's decision to exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror was not motivated by discriminatory intent. Believes that the judgment should be reversed to the extent that it imposed the sentence and thus is filing a separate opinion dissenting from the affirmance of the sentence. B. Milan's Crimes as a Public Official Milan was elected a member of the Camden city council on November 7. Was elected its president on January 1. Milan was elected mayor of Camden. A position to which he was sworn in on July 1. A government certified minority owned business enterprise which was to compete for government contracts on Natale's behalf. Milan arranged to have the title of a 1990 Chevrolet Lumina Van transferred to his fiance from Nick's Towing. As in the other instances we have recounted with respect to improper benefits. The owner of the Camden office building in which Milan's mayoral campaign headquarters was located. To draft a fake lease to demonstrate that monthly lease payments were due from Milan's campaign 7 even though Milan's campaign was using Willis's office space without charge.
	OPINION/ORDER The first issue is whether ERISA § 514(a). Against a third party who is neither a fiduciary nor a party in interest with respect to the plan. The second issue is whether ERISA § 502(a)(3). Whose interests are adverse to the interests of a pension plan subject to ERISA. The third issue is closely related to the second and asks whether ERISA § 502(a)(3) provides a cause of action for appropriate equitable relief against a nonfiduciary. I. Appellant Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund (the Pension Fund) is a multi employer employee pension benefit plan. The Pension Fund is located in Alexandria. Inc. is an Iowa corporation engaged in the business of managing hotel properties and has its principal place of business in Cedar Rapids. Inc. were under the Holiday Inn flag. Inc. is wholly owned by two brothers. 000 in debt were offered to over 100 potential investors in 1988 through mid 1989 with the expectation of obtaining $40. Inc. was the limited partner in LHLP. Was the general partner in LHLP and initially owned the remaining one percent.
	OPINION/ORDER It has become commonplace to observe that the world is getting smaller and that boundary lines between one country and the next have become blurred. One of their more important functions is to allocate litigation among the several national court systems. We have just such a case. Is fighting Hyatt's effort now to hale him into the U.S. courts to resolve some disputes that have arisen. We conclude that the case should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. I Coco is a director and employee of A.T.E. Is a business organized under the laws of England with its principal place of business in London. Is a business organized under the laws of Italy. It was in these capacities that he was approached in 1999 by the English entity Newpenny. Coco unequivocally stated that he was acting merely as an agent of Newpenny. Accordingly was not seeking a commission or broker's fee from Hyatt. Hyatt went ahead solo in the development of what will soon open as the Park Hyatt Milan. Was backed by a later recommendation that he be provided a
	OPINION/ORDER McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. I. A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature. (2) the equipment was not kept in good. The audit revealed that the walk in refrigerator contained several items with expired freshness codes that should have been removed and destroyed.
	OPINION/ORDER McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. I. A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature. (2) the equipment was not kept in good. The audit revealed that the walk in refrigerator contained several items with expired freshness codes that should have been removed and destroyed.
	MCDONALD'S CORP. V. ROBERTSON (7/28/1998, NO. 97-3308) McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. We affirm. I. A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized. On September 12. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature.
	MCDONALD'S CORP. V. ROBERTSON (7/28/1998, NO. 97-3308) McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. We affirm. I. A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized. On September 12. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature.
	OPINION/ORDER Because the admission of that evidence was not harmless. He was the driver and sole occupant of a silver 1983 Grand Marquis. Velarde told United States Customs Service (
	USA V. EDMOND
	OPINION/ORDER Because the admission of that evidence was not harmless. He was the driver and sole occupant of a silver 1983 Grand Marquis. Velarde told United States Customs Service (
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER If any of these allegations are true. Shall have the prior right to lease the whole or any part of the leased premises or any larger parcel which includes the leased premises.
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. RIO operates a website that informs prospective customers about its hotel and allows those enticed by Lady Luck to make reservations. 4468 RII is a Costa Rican entity that participates in an Internet sports gambling operation. Which was not authorized to accept service on RII's behalf. RII's 4470 eventual responses were almost entirely useless. 3 permits service in a place not within any judicial district of the United States
	OPINION/ORDER The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error. We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering.
	UNITED STATES V. ROSS (12/19/1997, NO. 96-3556) The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams and their co conspirators created shell corporations and contrived deceptive paper transactions that had no economic substance. Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. Under separate headings. We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error. We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering. I SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE A.
	UNITED STATES V. ROSS (12/19/1997, NO. 96-3556) The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams and their co conspirators created shell corporations and contrived deceptive paper transactions that had no economic substance. Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. Under separate headings. We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error. We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering. I SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE A.
	OPINION/ORDER Trompler is a nonunion machine shop that employs 30 workers in three shifts. The second shift runs from 2 to 10 p.m. and is staffed by eight workers. There is disagreement over what they told her. That it was that they had three complaints about the second shift supervisor: that he had failed to prevent sexual harassment of one of the six workers by another (the one who. The term
	97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 09/22/1998 The Unions have intervened to support the Board's application for enforcement. Aramark argues the Board is without jurisdiction to order Aramark to engage in collective bargaining because Aramark's operations fall within the political subdivision exemption of the Act. Aramark also argues the Board is without jurisdiction because under its government contracts. This court rejects Aramark's claim the Board erred in concluding it was not an exempt political subdivision. BACKGROUND Aramark is a Delaware corporation providing food services nationwide. These employees accordingly retained civil service status and the employees were in a public sector collective bargaining unit represented by Council 79. 1990 were Aramark employees and were not represented in the public sector collective bargaining unit. The original contract was renewed yearly until June 30. Aramark was awarded a one year contract. This contract was renewable for additional one year periods. In December 1996.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The error claimed is the denial by the district court of their motion to suppress evidence of crack cocaine found in their motel room. The facts are as follows. The manager reported that there were many visitors to the room. Harrell had used a non driver's license form of identification and had not registered with an automobile even though the occupants were using a car. The license plate of the car being used by the occupants showed that it was registered to Amerita Barringer and Henry Burton. Burton was the subject of three outstanding arrest warrants for bad check charges. The officers decided that they would continue surveillance until about 7 p.m. and if there was no further activity they would approach the room. The attempt was unsuccessful. The room was registered to Harrell. He was asked to step outside. Harrell was then asked. In a conversation that was tape recorded. He was then asked if he had drugs or guns in the room. He was asked why he ran to the bathroom when he saw the police at the window to which he replied he wanted to flush marijuana he and the others had been smoking.
	OPINION/ORDER We sustained a defendant's claim that the government's investigatory misconduct was so egregious that the due process clause demanded dismissal of the indictment against him. This holding was predicated on a pair of Supreme Court cases that appeared to recognize such a defense. In contrast to some other circuits which have never recognized the defense or no longer do so. Though in the twenty years since Twigg we have not found another set of facts that satisfy its rigorous requirements. Defendant Angela Nolan Cooper contends that the government's misconduct in its investigation of her was sufficiently egregious enough to warrant this extraordinary relief. Became the target of an Internal Revenue Service (
	RED SAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. DESPA DEUTSCHE SPARKASSEN Kline argued the cause for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER Duffy argues that she was constructively discharged as a result of a continuing pattern of discrimination by Paper Magic. We will affirm. She was promoted to Senior Customer Service Representative in January 1987. She was
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Jeffrey L. With him on the brief was Paige A. Was not an unreasonable estimate of the damages likely to result from a breach of the exclusive covenant. The building was owned by 607 14th Street Associates Limited Partnership. The original lease was not negotiated at arm's length. The provisions of this Section 34 shall be enforceable only so long as Tenant is operating a bar and/or a restaurant in the Leased Premises. ... (e) In the event that a Competing Use is operated in the Building at any time during the Term and Landlord has violated its covenants under this Section 34. Then (i) one half (1/2) of the Base Rent payable hereunder shall be abated during the period that the Competing Use is operated in the Building. The provisions of this subsection (e) shall not limit ... any other remedies which Tenant may have against Landlord for violating its obligations under this Section. The parties do not dis pute that this lease was executed at arm's length. Stating that
	PACRIM PIZZA COMPANY V. ROBERT PIRIE Argued for appellee.
	GUPTA V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (5/17/2000, NO. 98-5392) Finding that the Board was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on either the sex discrimination or the retaliation claim. The district court should have granted the Board judgment as a matter of law on both claims. Srabana Gupta
	GUPTA V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (5/17/2000, NO. 98-5392) Finding that the Board was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on either the sex discrimination or the retaliation claim. The district court should have granted the Board judgment as a matter of law on both claims. Srabana Gupta
	OPINION/ORDER When they were unable to answer his questions. They were taken into custody and their Taiwanese passports discovered to be photo substitutions (i.e. Their real names were He and Chen. Among their belongings were return tickets from Guam to Saipan. A review of flight manifests revealed that Tsai was a passenger on the flight He and Chen had attempted to board. That Tsai was the only other passenger who had taken both flights. Tsai was still on the eight hour flight to Hawaii. Tsai stated that he was a permanent resident alien living in Lawrenceville. So he was returning empty handed. The Guam INS agent had informed him that those names were the aliases appearing on He and Chen's doctored passports and airline tickets. Westlake then informed Tsai that he was being detained for an administrative proceeding before an immigration judge. Tsai was placed under arrest. He and Chen were intercepted attempting to embark. Also found in Tsai's valise at the Honolulu airport were airline vouchers in the name of Yee Khong Lim and Gaik Choo Tan.
	UNITED STATES V. OBOH This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. The <i>en banc</i> court decides that it will not overturn <i>United States v. </i> the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. <i>See United States v. INS agents received a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-8154.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. OBOH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The <i>en banc</i> court decides that it will not overturn <i>United States v. </i> the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. <i>See United States v. INS agents received a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1456.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Powers</SPAN> was on brief for appellees Michael D. LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellees Transamerica Corporation. Twenty three owners of real property in Rhode Island were disadvantaged by being part of a group required to pay their real estate taxes annually rather than quarterly. Were required to pay taxes in one lump sum. The quarterly payment method is more favorable to the taxpayer because it permits the taxpayer to receive the interest on the escrowed funds until the quarter in which payment is due.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948154.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The en banc court decides that it will not overturn United States v. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. INS agents received a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="237"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33123AAFB79F09708825714F006B0F4A/$file/0315045.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was terminated from her position as a bartender at the sports bar in Harrah's Reno casino not long after Harrah's began to enforce its comprehensive uniform. Jespersen refused to comply with the makeup requirement and was effectively terminated for that reason. While women were required to use makeup and men were forbidden to wear makeup. Women were allowed to have long hair and men were required to have their hair cut to a length above the collar. 875 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="237"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1064a.html">LARO MAINT CORP V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF006B9841CD04FD88257137005C2896/$file/0435268.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If the snowmobile liability statute's gross negligence standard is unconstitutional. The answers to the certified questions will be determinative of the appeal pending in our court in this action. We have found no controlling Montana appellate decisions. That our phrasing of the questions is not intended to restrict your Court's consideration of this request. Relevant facts concerning the certified questions are stated below. Whether or not directly responsive to the questions as we have phrased them. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Brian Musselman (Musselman) was gravely injured in a snowmobile accident on a National Forest trail. Alleging that the United States Forest Service negligently failed to correct or warn of a dangerous condition on the Big Sky snowmobile trail where Musselman was injured. Default was taken against Johnson. Kalahar settled with plaintiffs and was dismissed before trial. The opinion of the district court is reported at 311 F. Which held that where two tortfeasors are each negligent but it cannot be determined whose negligence was the actual cause of the injuries. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="235"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2120a.htm">98-2120A -- U.S. V. DIAZ -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="234"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-5009a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="234"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8008.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> O'BRIEN. He also asserts the guidelines are invalid under the Sixth Amendment pursuant to Blakely v. Then fifty seven years of age and believing he was conversing in a chat room with the mother of a twelve year old girl. To engage in sexual relations with both the mother and her daughter.(3) As Graham admitted when he entered his plea of guilty: After my wife died I was starting to visit some chat rooms online and was into adult chat rooms. I was I was in there and I met someone. After talking for several weeks we agreed that I would come here to have sex with her and her daughter. (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1711.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 8. Hamilton & Scheetz were on brief for appellant. Marquez and Drinker Biddle & Reath were on brief for appellee. After the suit was transferred to the district court in Puerto Rico. After the case was transferred to Puerto Rico. An amended complaint was filed. Since the amended complaint was later dismissed on the pleadings. What follows is SAS's version of the facts. PRTC is a Delaware corporation that provides about 90 percent of the telephone service within Puerto Rico and operates over 95 percent of the pay phones in Puerto Rico. All of the stock of PRTC was acquired about 20 years ago by the Puerto Rico Telephone Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="230"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1412p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Hyatt Corporation is the manager of a resort hotel on St. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) (action between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) (action between citizens of different states in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties). We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the grant of partial summary judgment and abuse of discretion review over the court's transition order. Great Cruz was looking for a company to maximize the economic potential of the resort. Hyatt was reticent to commit the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/6d27b9b4187120e288256c39007a4509/$FILE/0015594.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over Plaintiffs' timely appeal of the district court's judgment. Were each asked to analyze 623 pap smear slides. 1 Cytotechnologists are lab technicians that analyze pap smear slides. Which was not singled out by name. Said that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D27B9B4187120E288256C39007A4509/$file/0015594.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over Plaintiffs' timely appeal of the district court's judgment. Were each asked to analyze 623 pap smear slides. 1 Cytotechnologists are lab technicians that analyze pap smear slides. Which was not singled out by name. Said that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955327.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Frederick Jermaine Poindexter was convicted of: (1) conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. The upper 2 level of the terminal is for passenger drop offs so there is no departing ground transportation. That two individuals flying under the names Curtis Davis and Tony Lewis were aboard Flight 36. Agent Oliff was further advised that the seat assignments for the tickets issued were next to each other. They were approached from behind by DEA Task Force agents. Poindexter and Cheung were able to observe the DEA Task Force agents through a reflection on the terminal exit's glass doors. There was no evidence introduced demonstrating that Poindexter paid for his ticket in cash. The government's evidence only established that Cheung's ticket was paid in cash. 2 At trial. The government did not demonstrate that the tickets were purchased thirty minutes prior to Flight 36's scheduled departure. The government's evidence demonstrated that Cheung and Poindexter made their reservation for Flight 36 at the travel agency less than thirty minutes prior to Flight 36's scheduled departure. 3 Cheung was followed through the exit door by two DEA Task Force agents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-4058.htm">00-4058 -- UTAH LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION V. LEAVITT -- 07/24/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href= </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948700.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.1 Appellants and Cross Appellees. The two cases were consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc. is listed as a separate defendant in Case No. 93 CV 2938. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. 3 are involved in the restaurant business. Concluded that Defendant's rights were superior in Georgia. We remand the matter to the district court to determine if Defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act. The first such restaurant was opened in October 1989 in Winston Salem. We treat these separate entities as if they were one. 3 North Carolina. The LONE STAR CAFE mark covers both clothing items and The mark covering restaurant services was by a New York City nightclub operator. restaurant services. registered in 1981 Plaintiff's predecessor corporation purchased the LONE STAR CAFE mark from the nightclub in 1992. Which registration is now incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-4422.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Were issued in the District of Puerto Rico and the Southern District of Florida. The marshals came to believe that Gonzalez was registered at the Princess Motel. Who was unable to identify a picture of Gonzalez as Jorge Perez. Branyon concluded that there were similarities and that. It was likely that Jorge Perez was really Gonzalez. Room 268 was monitored.<p> Around 3:00 a.m. Branyon returned to the front desk and observed that the control panel indicated that the door between Room 268 and the adjoining parking garage was being opened. The Blazer proceeded through the parking lot until its path was blocked by a City Police car and a U.S. The Blazer's occupants were again instructed to stop and to get out of the vehicle. Its occupants were apprehended and arrested. Gonzalez made post arrest statements indicating that he knew he was wanted by the police. His case was tried to a jury. Gonzalez was found guilty by the jury on all counts and appealed.<p> <i>Discussion</i><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-4422.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Were issued in the District of Puerto Rico and the Southern District of Florida. The marshals came to believe that Gonzalez was registered at the Princess Motel. Who was unable to identify a picture of Gonzalez as Jorge Perez. Branyon concluded that there were similarities and that. It was likely that Jorge Perez was really Gonzalez. Room 268 was monitored.<p> Around 3:00 a.m. Branyon returned to the front desk and observed that the control panel indicated that the door between Room 268 and the adjoining parking garage was being opened. The Blazer proceeded through the parking lot until its path was blocked by a City Police car and a U.S. The Blazer's occupants were again instructed to stop and to get out of the vehicle. Its occupants were apprehended and arrested. Gonzalez made post arrest statements indicating that he knew he was wanted by the police. His case was tried to a jury. Gonzalez was found guilty by the jury on all counts and appealed.<p> <i>Discussion</i><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0220p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Defendants are a group of corporations doing business as Double JJ Resort. Double JJ is a large western themed resort near Rothbury. There is also a golf course on site. Both parties agree that it is a separate establishment and is not part of this suit. No employee is paid overtime. Some employees are paid less than the minimum wage. Because it was exempt from the requirements as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962412.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 29 the cross reference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954422.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were issued in the District of Puerto Rico and the Southern District of Florida. The marshals came to believe that Gonzalez was registered at the Princess Motel. Who was unable to identify a picture of Gonzalez as Jorge Perez. Branyon concluded that there were similarities and that. It was likely that Jorge Perez was really Gonzalez. Room 268 was monitored. Branyon returned to the front desk and observed that the control panel indicated that the door between Room 268 and the adjoining parking garage was being opened. The Blazer proceeded through the parking lot until its path was blocked by a City Police car and a U.S. The Blazer's occupants were again instructed to stop and to get out of the vehicle. Its occupants were apprehended and arrested. Gonzalez made post arrest statements indicating that he knew he was wanted by the police. His case was tried to a jury. Gonzalez was found guilty by the jury on all counts and appealed. Sufficiency of the Evidence Gonzalez challenges several of his convictions on the ground that the government's evidence was insufficient to establish the offenses charged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948154.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The en banc court decides that it will not overturn United States v. Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. INS agents received a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/98-5367.man.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1554.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On cover sheet under list of counsel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-5367.man.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1344.htm">99-1344 -- WEINMAN V. FIDELITY CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND -- 08/21/2001<BR></A><BR> Any and all additional parties who either have joined or will join the said Committee. Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1678p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was abducted. The members of the community were unaware of the accused murderer's history. Forty nine states had adopted sex offender registration laws and thirty two states maintained some form of community notification program. 6 We have before us challenges to the constitutionality of the notification requirements of New Jersey's Megan's Law based on the Ex Post Facto. The issues before us are difficult but relatively narrow. We are not called upon to decide whether Megan's Law can constitutionally be applied to one who has committed one of the designated sex crimes after its enactment. Is it our responsibility to determine whether the policy judgments reflected in Megan's Law are prudent ones. Public reaction to Megan's murder was intense. The Law and Public Safety Committee held a hearing upon pending legislation that pre dated Megan's Law and would have required victim notification on the release of offenders. Registration and community notification bills identical to their General Assembly counterparts were introduced in the Senate on September 12. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="220"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1214p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the action was not time barred and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="219"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3467_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that Castaways and Gonzalez were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="219"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7BD3F8D6A62D994588256DE2005C863B/$file/0215635.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Gregory J. With him on the brief was John Margiotta. The Board's refusal to register Palm Bay's VEUVE ROYALE mark is affirmed. 1 Paul R. Is a legal determination based upon factual underpinnings. Evidence is substantial if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1542.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Procter & Hoar were on brief for appellants. Grady and Grady and Dwyer were on brief for appellees. New England employees of United Parcel Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/986490.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. appeals a judgment that former United Healthcare employees are entitled to WARN Act back pay. Because we conclude United Healthcare was no longer an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/021845P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to be executed. His motion for state post conviction relief filed pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 was overruled. Were affirmed in a consolidated appeal taken to the Missouri Supreme Court. Made by the prosecutor in his closing statement when he was speaking of conversations Brown had with his wife. Is the story that he told Kathy Moore strange and other worldly? Is the story that he told the police strange and other worldly? This is a strange. You have heard uncontested testimony from Ms. The point I'm trying to make is not that his statement about Janet Perkins is necessarily that his statement about the murder of Janet Perkins is evidence of his guilt in this case. It is not. It is a strange. That both of the strange stories he told to his wife and to the police on videotape are consistent with a very. As Brown suggests it should have. His Rule 29.15 counsel did not properly present a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's remark. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="216"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2285.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fernandez Sein were on brief for appellants. Will Kemp. CHTD was on brief for appellees. Were to focus their efforts on litigation tasks idiosyncratic to their respective clients' cases. The district court estab lished the following cost submission and reimbursement guide 4 lines: [A]ssessments2 will be deposited in a fund that will defray the reasonable expenses of the PSC in the performance of its duties. That is. Only reasonable and necessary expenses will be reimbursed. Reimbursements are conditioned. Were required to advance and pool the monies needed to fund their clients' litigation. Reimbursement for their advances were contingent upon their recoveries from defendants. 5 verification of expenses. Certified public accountant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-1398.htm">98-1398 -- U.S. V. CISNEROS-CRUZ -- 06/30/1999<BR></A><BR> Cisneros Cruz was deported to Mexico November 18. He told them he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0419p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This motion was denied. The legal issue presented whether the district court erred in denying the defendants' request for judgment as a matter of law is relatively simple. The answer is obtained. Only by conducting a close examination of the facts of the case in order to determine whether they are legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of intentional race discrimination. As will be explained. Page 2 jury's verdict and should have resulted in a judgment for the defendant. Is a holding company whose subsidiaries operate a number of concept restaurants throughout the country. One of these restaurants is Romano's Macaroni Grill in Worthington. Noble was permitted to introduce a significant amount of evidence at trial pertaining to Lawrence's allegedly discriminatory treatment of him and other minority employees. Noble testified that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0092n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Latam could not have justifiably relied on GE's promise. The agreement stated that the amount of credit GE would extend to Latam for the purchase of GE products was in GE's absolute discretion. The distributorship agreement was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4082.htm">01-4082 -- CITIZENS' COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR CANYONS V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE -- 07/23/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is whether the Forest Service complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Both of these transactions occurred while Snowbird was undertaking operations to improve its resort capacity. <p> SOC alleges that the Forest Service's handling of these transactions was arbitrary and capricious in several respects. All parties agree that Snowbird is a ski resort of some significance. The resort itself is comprised of 881 acres of private land (called the Mineral Basin) and 1. Snowbird is required to submit periodically a master development plan outlining its long range plans for the resort and the public lands it utilizes. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1472.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1379.htm">98-1379 -- COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION V. DOMBECK -- 08/09/1999<BR></A><BR> The Forest Service was not required to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement. The Forest Service exercised jurisdiction over this matter because the existing ski area and the Category III area are within the White River National Forest. The Forest Service concluded the expansion : (1) is consistent with the applicable Forest Plan. (2) will significantly improve the recreational experience for visitors to the Vail Ski Area and the White River National Forest by providing more reliable and dependable skiing conditions. (3) will build skier visitation during non peak periods. Will not threaten the viability of lynx. Will have minor socioeconomic effects. Will have an acceptable level of impact on other resources. <p> By way of history we point out that Vail submitted a general expansion proposal in 1986. Subject to subsequent site specific environmental analysis.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/97-8886.man.html">WHITLEY V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 97-8886)<BR></A><BR> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-8886.man.html">WHITLEY V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 97-8886)<BR></A><BR> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978886.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. I. BACKGROUND The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="208"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/97-3229.htm">97-3229 -- U.S. V. CHANTHADARA -- 11/01/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxMTUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4115-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We disagree with the district court's conclusion that the undisputed behavior of the individual defendant was. That she was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex in violation of federal and state law. It is undisputed that defendant Michael Tintweiss. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/985356.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schurr alleged that race was the determining factor in Resorts' decision not to offer him a job which was ultimately filled by an equally well qualified minority candidate. Has been substituted for Smith. 2 Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the Commission's regulations establishing minority employment goals. Schurr also alleged that Resorts' affirmative action plan as drafted and applied was invalid. Because we are convinced that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Schurr's Title VII and other statutory claims. We will reverse that portion of the District Court's Order and remand the matter for further proceedings. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chairman on standing grounds. Minorities and persons with disabilities are recruited and employed at all levels of the operation's work force and treated during employment without regard to their gender. Equal opportunity efforts are to be undertaken in all employment practices including promotion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxMTUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-4115-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We disagree with the district court's conclusion that the undisputed behavior of the individual defendant was. That she was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex in violation of federal and state law. It is undisputed that defendant Michael Tintweiss. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/994043.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide if a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1819954AA8E290CA8825701A004C6819/$file/0356135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The banners are located so that they are visible to customers of businesses that deal with certain contractors who do not have union contracts. While the banners are displayed. Local Union Number 1506 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9300D61A9D3C173088256F0900552C3D/$file/0217317.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue presented by this case is whether. A company which contracted to build a house is covered under its commercial general liability policy against claims brought against the company by the dissatisfied homeowners. Construction was completed. The gravamen of the homeowners' allegations was that Oceanic improperly designed and/or constructed the foundation of the residence causing earth movement and resulting in physical and structural damage to both the residence and the retaining walls on the property. At the time the counterclaim was filed. Oceanic was the named insured under a standard form commercial general liability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F136ED29BECB29788257192004F2478/$file/0435998.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Amended Opinion. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is therefore DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. Facts1 Cal Brown is not a nice man. Schnell was able to call the front desk and summon the police. Brown was tried in Washington. Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thirteen year old Claudia White was awakened in her Chatham. Who was in her bed. He saw Fitzgerald and demanded to know what he was doing with his daughter. As White was doing so. Fitzgerald hailed a taxicab driven by Hugh Morrison in which Kathryn Davis was a passenger. Lovelace knew Fitzgerald because he was a friend of her boyfriend. Fitzgerald told Lovelace that Younger was on his way to her home and that he wished to wait for him. Lovelace questioned Fitzgerald why he was doing these things. He responded that it was because Younger had raped his girlfriend. Fitzgerald's convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Virginia. Fitzgerald raises four claims: (1) that he was denied a fair and impartial jury in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. (3) that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that he was parole ineligible in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (4) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/00-6141.htm">00-6141 -- U.S. V. LOTT -- 11/05/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/003457P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even if his conviction were lawful. His sentence is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. Because we find that the District Court properly denied Wheat's motion to suppress and that the Apprendi error was harmless. Was being driven erratically in the northbound lane of Highway 169. The caller complained that the Nissan was passing on the wrong side of the road. Who was sitting in the front passenger seat. There were no other passengers. A check disclosed that Wheat's license was suspended but that notice of the suspension had The Honorable Mark W. Because Officer Samuelson was unfamiliar with the procedure for service. Because Officer Samuelson had noticed that the driver's hands were fidgeting. As Officer Samuelson was walking around toward the passenger side. Because it was raining during the duration of the stop. The dryness of the bag was remarkable. Wheat was indicted by a grand jury on one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-6141.htm">00-6141 -- U.S. V. LOTT -- 07/30/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDA7E49995BC06D888256A15005FA185/$file/9855160.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine when a service mark is first used in commerce under the Lanham Act. We conclude that Pac Tel's first use of the mark was even earlier than that found by the district court. April 1990 was the first time LACOE began using the system on a non test basis. When the system was publicly launched. Pac Tel was developing customers among various vehicle fleet operating enterprises and had agreements with at least twenty four of them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E34876CC8ACB973F88256E5A00707AA1/$file/9855160.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine when a service mark is first used in commerce under the Lanham Act. We conclude that Pac Tel's first use of the mark was even earlier than that found by the district court. April 1990 was the first time LACOE began using the system on a non test basis. When the system was publicly launched. Pac Tel was developing customers among various vehicle fleet operating enterprises and had agreements with at least twenty four of them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6C787AC61C157D8E88257074005A456D/$file/0355166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question presented is whether California Assembly Bill 1889. Is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.1 As we explain. The California statute chills employers from exercising their free speech rights that are explicitly protected by Congress under the National Labor Relations Act. That the use of the state spending power is rarely a defense to state interference with the National Labor Relations Act. 290 91 (1986) (emphasizing that Congress would not have intended to allow states to interfere with the NLRA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1502.html">PHONOMETRICS, INC V. ECONOMY INNS<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Lawrence B. For defendant appellee RHI Hotels.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Kristin A. For defendants appellees Fairmont Hotel Management and Grosvenor Hotels Group.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Howard A. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994162.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 2 the sentence is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/995472.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His claim was approved on June 18. Benefits are payable under the Plan when a worker becomes totally disabled and remains disabled for six consecutive months.1 See App. at B21. Because Syed was 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-40096.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts of which are largely undisputed. Roma is located less than one quarter of a mile from Mexico. The stretch of Highway 83 where the stop occurred is no It We The more than eight miles from the United States Mexico border. is known to be an alien and narcotics trafficking route. There were bundles containing 130 pounds of marijuana in the rear of the car that were plainly visible from the outside through the passenger windows. 3 Sometime thereafter. Arjona Martinez timely Arjona Martinez argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the tip that led to his arrest was unreliable and did not give rise to reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. Are reviewed de novo. 2002). Factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Evidence presented at a suppression hearing is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. The prevailing party is the United States. Articulable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Border Patrol agents on roving patrol may stop a vehicle only if </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3989.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants are practitioners of Falun Gong. Most of the appellants are current or past residents of the People's Republic of China. Two of the appellants are United States citizens and a third is an alien resident of Illinois. They have denounced the movement as a cult and have accused it of seeking to subvert or 1 We accept. President Jiang himself declared that suppressing Falun Gong was one of the 4 </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1962_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where she was born and raised. We find that the immigration judge's credibility determinations were not supported 2 No. 04 1962 by cogent reasons bearing a legitimate nexus to the finding. I. Giday's tale of mixed ancestry is a familiar one. Her partial Ethiopian ancestry (her mother is Ethiopian and her father Eritrean) subjected her to persecution by the Eritrean Government. She testified that she was born in 1979 in Asmara. When Giday was six. She explained to the national service officers that she was attending school and soon to be married. She testified that she was able to avoid serving by moving from her mother's house to her fiance's house whenever she heard word that government officials were on their way. Giday's brothers were conscripted into the national service and Giday stated that she has not heard from either her mother or brothers since that time. Giday initially testified that she was detained because her mother was Ethiopian and also because she had failed to serve in the national service a second time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="195"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001268.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That district courts have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Is unable to do so. The statute provides in pertinent part: A person who is prohibited from possessing. The Secretary may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability. Are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. 18 U.S.C. Or receiving firearms that have traveled in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. A convicted felon can regain his firearms privileges if the jurisdiction in which he was convicted expunges his conviction. Rice was the first circuit court opinion to address whether the appropriations ban enables felons to seek the restoration of their firearms privileges in federal court despite ATF 's inability to review their applications. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="195"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1176.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. I. BACKGROUND The relevant facts are not seriously disputed. Was a civilian employee of the city of Warwick. One of the participants in the planned transaction was a government informant. Police headquarters is the nerve center of local law enforcement. So it is here: in the idiom of the sentencing guidelines. Explain that positions of trust are characterized by significant discretion and minimal supervision: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="195"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214306.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence at trial demonstrated that Pipkins and Moore prostituted juvenile females at least one of whom was as young as 12 from at least 1997 until their arrest in late 2001. The Defendants were convicted of conspiracy. Most noteworthy is whether the evidence supports the jury's finding that they agreed to participate in an enterprise that met the statutory definition of a RICO enterprise. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant Pipkins (known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="194"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07AA879059B5008488256CAD005CB328/$file/0135266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tustumena Lake is located in Alaska. Because it is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C35DD8755B28039788256E530077F226/$file/0157065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGinest alleges that he was placed in dangerous working conditions because of his race. McGinest claims that he was denied a promotion in late 1998 due to his race and in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. GTE responds that it was unable to promote him due to a hiring freeze. The court found that the incidents comprising the hostile work environment claim were sporadic. It found that McGinest was unable to produce sufficient evidence that GTE's stated reason for failing to promote him was a pretext. GTE SERVICE CORP. 3007 whether the denial of the promotion was prompted by a discriminatory motive. I. BACKGROUND George McGinest is an African American employee of GTE. McGinest was initially hired as a lineman. Because this case was decided on summary judgment. Although GTE is now owned by Verizon. We continue to refer to it by the name under which it was sued. 1 3008 MCGINEST v. Although the majority of these incidents were not accompanied by explicit racial comments. McGinest testified at his deposition that Noson's behavior and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315346.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These claims are not at issue in this appeal. 2 1 1165 (11th Cir. 2003). Permits courts to set aside agency action when it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5027a.html">CHECKERS DRIVE IN V. CMSNR PATENTS & TRD<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C19F4081B980E89988256E5A00707A80/$file/9916021.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although these tips are paid by customers directly to employees. Federal law deems them to have been paid by the employer for purposes of FICA taxes. This puts employers in an awkward position: They are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E2741208DC23B52588256A080061AC26/$file/9916021.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although these tips are paid by customers directly to employees. Federal law deems them to have been paid by the employer for purposes of FICA taxes. This puts employers in an awkward position: They are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-4190.htm">01-4190 -- MITANI V. IHC HEALTH SERVICES INC. -- 12/16/2002<BR></A><BR> 1291 and AFFIRM. <p> Mitani was employed in IHC's South Urban Region. The person hired to fill this position was to devise a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></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-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1318.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Testified that he was unaware of any hotel using a telephone system that displays the cost of a long distance call as it was taking place. Hospitality's vice president and most knowledgeable employee regarding such matters testified under oath that he was not aware of any such telephone system 04 1318 2 in any of Hospitality's franchisees' hotels or motels. Because questions regarding the scope or extent of We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. discovery are not generally unique to patent law. Cir. 1996) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1112a.html">PA ST EDUC ASSOC V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4248.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was indicted before the United States District Court in the <hr> District of Utah on two counts of possession of stolen mail. After her motion was denied. One of the conditions of her supervised release was that she must remain current on the restitution payments owed from her previous two federal convictions. Mitchell abandoned the room before it was searched. That because the troopers were repeatedly told by the motel clerks that the room was unoccupied. We hold that a special condition of supervised release which requires the defendant to remain current on restitution payments from previous criminal convictions is not <hr> subject to the limitations of restitution. Was performing a routine search for stolen vehicles in the area of Midvale. He ran the car's vehicle identification number through his computer and determined that the vehicle was registered to an Angelia Mitchell. The vehicle's proper license plates were visible inside the car. Whether anyone with a red Dodge Neon was registered at the motel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0133p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Included in the Huron National Forest is a forty acre parcel known as the Bull Gap Hill Climb Area ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1170a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kenniff was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Of a Board order holding that Capital is a successor employer within the meaning of NLRB v. Capital argues that (1) the Board's finding that Capital was a successor because it acted with anti union animus in refusing to hire union workers is not supported by substantial evi dence. (2) under Burns it was entitled to establish the terms and conditions of employment it would offer initially to the employees of its predecessor. (3) the Board's remedial order is punitive. For the reasons stated below we reject Capital's first two arguments but agree that the Board's order is punitive. AFL CIO was the exclusive bargaining representative of the Ogden cleaning employees. That he was not pleased with the quality of the work Ogden had done. As was its general practice. Because Kaplan was con cerned that KCR would not be able fully to staff the Bulova building. Kaplan testified that because hiring the Ogden em ployees </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/14D378AD5A58E56E88256C16007B1ED6/$file/9956947.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we have no jurisdiction over the merits. BACKGROUND The Millers filed a complaint in state court alleging various state law causes of action and a separate cause of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-2089.htm">02-2089 -- NISH V. RUMSFELD -- 11/14/2003<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs are non profit agencies representing the blind and severely handicapped. Have preferred status in the provision of goods and services to the federal government. The mess hall contract was then awarded to NMCB. Plaintiffs contend that (1) the interpretation of the RS Act by the Department of Education (DOE) is not entitled to deference. (2) the RS Act does not apply here because the KAFB mess hall is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024731.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ashon Leftenant was convicted of six counts of possessing counterfeit obligations of the United States. He asserts that his indictment should have been dismissed because of a violation of the Speedy Trial Act. He insists that the evidence against him was insufficient to sustain his convictions. He maintains that the charges in the indictment were multiplicitous. Leftenant was erroneously convicted of six offenses when the evidence established only a single act of possession. Approached a group of individuals who were standing in the Hardee's parking lot. Was one of the individuals in the parking lot. He was wearing an Atlanta Falcons hat. After Bailey advised him that the bill he had tendered was counterfeit. Was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in Pennsylvania. It was folded such that a black </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2252.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2128.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rick Camuglia appeals a summary judgment rejecting his claim that he was denied substantive and procedural due process when his restaurant was temporarily shut down for alleged health code violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. I. BACKGROUND The evidence before the district court was as follows: On February 19. A pesticide that is approved for use in restaurants but can be hazardous to humans. Do not apply while food processing is underway. Ventilate thoroughly before occupants are allowed to re enter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021855.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CHEWL'S HOSPITALITY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Chewl argues that the arbitration award should be set aside because (1) the arbitration clause is unconscionable. (2) the contractual liquidated damages clause in the underlying contract is an unenforceable penalty. Chewl was entitled to operate a hotel using Choice Hotels' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/023621p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The employer shall not bar an employee from patronizing the employer's business after the employee's working hours are complete. (7) who is incompetent or i n e fficient. Code Ann. §§ 76 79 is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Whether the application of the WDA to supervisors is preempted by the NLRA. A prior panel of this Court addressed the first issue at the preliminary injunction phase and decided that the WDA was not preempted. An employer may dismiss an employee: (1) who engages in a business which conflicts with his duties to his 2 (8) who is dishonest. Or (9) whose conduct is such that it leads to the refusal. Reluctance or inability of other employees to work with him. **** (c) Any employe e discharged for reasons other t h a n t h o s e stated in subsection (a) of this section shall be considered to have been wrongfully discharged. Or as a result of the employee's participation in concerted activity that is not protected by this title. 24 V.I. The issue of the coverage under the WDA of supervisory employees who are not executives or professionals is still. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2504.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Iaci was an appliance repairman for Sears in West Palm Beach. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-3285.htm">98-3285 -- STORTS V. HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS INC. -- 04/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Hardee's' primary contentions are that the district court's instructions on the duty to provide security and the duty to warn of a dangerous condition. Were not supported by the evidence. The suit is barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that although the evidence is sufficient to establish the existence and breach of the duty to provide security. This error requires reversal because it is impossible to determine from the general verdict whether the jury relied on the improperly submitted duty to warn theory of negligence. The remaining claims of error are without merit. She was admitted to St. Oklahoma because she had overdosed on drugs and alcohol and was suffering from depression. Of which she was an intended third party beneficiary. The case was tried to a jury. Hardee's argues that Storts's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The jury instructions regarding duty were erroneous. A civil action is deemed commenced on the date the complaint is filed. Provided service of process is obtained within ninety days of the date of filing. <u>See</u> Kan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032773p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Its implementing regulations1 are preempted because its solid waste disposal facility involves transportation by railroad and is therefore subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2433.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</SPAN> was on brief. Griffin</SPAN> was on brief. Ruffner</SPAN> was on brief. For appellant Mauricio Berguette Meran.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1079.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bruno with whom Marisa Rivera Barrera and Sweeting Gonzalez Cestero & Bruno were on brief for appellants. Graffam & Lausell was on brief for appellees. * Of the Eighth Circuit. Is not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0115p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions have been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other judges* of the court in regular active service. Less than a majority of whom have voted in favor of rehearing en banc. The petitions have been returned to the panel for decision. Upon consideration of the petitions and the response the panel concludes that the issues raised therein were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Each of the requests for rehearing is therefore denied. Copies of that decision and the revised concurrence are attached hereto. * Judge Daughtrey recused herself from participation in this ruling. 1 No. 04 5887 United States v. Ignores the fact that those decisions have been severely undermined and limited by other Eighth Circuit decisions. The panel's decision is incorrect and it undermines both the purposes of the exclusionary rule and the good faith exception. The police had information that Leon was heavily involved in drug importation into the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2142.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roitman & Coleman was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. EOS hired a significant 2 number of the City's employees who were then working at the 3 plant. Each lasting three years in duration. 11 The parties negotiated the collective bargaining agreement 12 that is the subject of this appeal (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0327p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the Government is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. Chase met Wright while they were both bouncers at a bar in Michigan. Wright was a member of the Avengers Motorcycle Club (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033392p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ESQUIRE McDermott Will & Emery 227 West Monroe Street. This case involves twelve1 consolidated appeals from the District Court's order approving Combustion Engineering's bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization under 11 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.2 We will vacate and remand. The state and federal judicial systems have struggled with an avalanche of asbestos lawsuits. The difficulties with asbestos litigation have been well documented by RAND and others.3 Efforts to resolve the asbestos problem through global settlement class actions under Fed. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(1)(B) have so far been unsuccessful. Mounting asbestos liabilities have pushed otherwise viable companies into bankruptcy. The centerpiece of the Plan is an injunction in favor of Combustion Engineering that channels all of its asbestos claims to a post confirmation trust (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-5076.html">AEROLINEAS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0808p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court sitting as an appellate court in bankruptcy. At issue is whether. A non record interest holder in real property is entitled to personal service before a foreclosure sale even though notice was mailed to the record owners and was posted on the property. Or should have known. That the purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser because of its actual knowledge of the unrecorded interest. We will affirm. The house was occupied by two of Thomas Bacon's children. Liberty Savings Bank began foreclosure proceedings against Thomas and Duane Bacon in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.[fn3] Liberty's attempts to serve notice on Thomas and Duane Bacon personally were unsuccessful. Recited that a copy of the complaint was posted on the house on March 16. 1991 notice was posted at the house pursuant to the Common Pleas Court's order. Graves was served on November 16. 1992 holding that the motion was not promptly filed and that Graves did not have a meritorious defense to the claim.[fn7] C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991218.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 5 the crossreference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0320n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board found that Greer and Associates is the alter ego of Crossroads and that both entities unlawfully refused to give effect to the collective bargaining agreement that existed between Crossroads and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Greer and Associates argues that enforcement is unwarranted because either the Union failed to file its charge against Crossroads and Greer and 1 Associates within the applicable statute of limitations or. Assuming the charge was timely. Substantial evidence did not support the Board's determination that Greer and Associates is an alter ego of Crossroads. Which was formed in 1997. Is an electrical contracting company. Crossroads was initially owned and operated by three individuals: Micheal Thomas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0327p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> May Ridge was to pay $242. The parties agreed that May Ridge's obligations under the Lease were to be secured3 inter alia. May Ridge was to maintain a minimum net worth </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/972854P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Denied her application for suspension of Petitioner has a husband and two daughters who were issued Orders to Show Cause at the same time as Petitioner. Her daughters' cases were consolidated with that 1 deportation. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(1). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(C). 129 F. 3d 438 (8th Cir. 1997). of Petitioner before the immigration judge but are not the subject of this appeal. That the case of Petitioner's husband was severed from that of Petitioner. His application for suspension of deportation was granted. That the other daughter is a permanent resident and will be eligible to apply for United States citizenship on September 4. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1882_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Palestinian Khaled Abdel Latif Dumeisi was in close contact with the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1467a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. (2) some of the unfair labor practices found by the Board are unsupported by substantial evidence and (3) Flamingo was denied its due process right to a neutral decisionmaker. We grant in part Flamingo's petition for review and deny the NLRB's applica tion for enforcement of its Gissel order and two of its unfair 1 A Gissel order is one requiring an employer to bargain with a union and is issued </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/052202P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Jones and Clark were employees at a UPS facility in Lenexa. Jones was a tractor trailer driver with a daily route (a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-6005.htm">03-6005 -- U.S. V. WARD -- 04/29/2004<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1574_036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are obliged to view the trial evidence in a light favorable to the government. Who were sometimes referred to by the witnesses in this case as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/47EEC9FC6003AF4888256F040056C48D/$file/0335498.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the Department's offer was not arbitrary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Monument Act was passed to protect the ecosystem created by the eruption. It is the sense of the Congress that in the case of mineral and geothermal interests such exchanges should be completed within one year after the date of enactment of this Act. More than twenty years after the Monument Act was enacted. B. The Partnership's Mineral Interests The Partnership is the owner of patented mineral interests on about 604 acres of land located within the boundaries of the Monument. The Norway Sweden Group is located at the head of Spirit Lake. Determined the copper deposits were too small and of too low grade to develop. 16% of this area is under water and most of the remainder is covered with blown down timber. The United Group is located on the east side of a ridge that separates Spirit Lake and the Green River drainage. Natural vegetation has returned to this area after the eruption and guided walks are led on the land. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7085a.html">DAVID J. GORMAN V. AMERITRADE<BR></A><BR> Craig argued the cause for appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-7085a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Robert S. We consider whether the courts of the District of Columbia may assert general jurisdiction over a defendant that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033388p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033088p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are not eligible for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6067.htm">01-6067 -- TELECOR COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. -- 09/10/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements. <p> Pay phone service providers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983052P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The party against whom summary judgment was granted. Cossette was able to continue her employment with MP&L in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0718p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The total judgment was for $614. While these assurances were inconsistent with the terms of the plan. As the terms were in the plan and also were described in the summary plan description which the appellants provided to Haberern. The appellants argue that recovery on this claim is barred because damages for a breach of fiduciary duty cannot be awarded to a plan beneficiary under section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA. We find that the reduction in Haberern's salary was a management decision for which they cannot be liable under ERISA. We determine that the district court's conclusion that a letter Haberern's attorney sent to the appellants' attorney was a request for information within the meaning of section 105(a). Is erroneous as a matter of law. We will reverse the district court's judgment awarding damages on all these grounds. We have noted a comment in the appellants' brief that the district court barely distinguished among the appellants in reaching its conclusions. We recognize that the district court may have entered judgment on certain claims against particular appellants not liable on those claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2238.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellee. * Of the District of Massachusetts. For damages resulting from the rape of Kimberly Crocker while she and her husband of less than a year were guests at that lodging. Appellants allege that when Kimberly Crocker was walking through the hotel premises alone. She was attacked at knifepoint and raped. Claims that the assault was perpetrated by a person who was neither a guest at the hotel nor a hotel employee. Which was granted notwithstanding appellants' opposition. Which request was also denied. Appellants attempted to stay the jurisdictional ruling pending discovery but this move was rejected by the trial court. These rulings are all the subject of this appeal. (3) they contend that appellee's activities in Massachusetts were sufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Mass. Appellee is a corporation organized under the laws of Barbados. As will be 3 described hereinafter. Have any process agent. Or is it listed as having a Massachusetts telephone number or address. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1263a.htm">99-1263A -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000<BR></A><BR> The section should read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/983519.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Township claims that the District Court erred in concluding that its zoning ordinance was impermissibly exclusionary under the Pennsylvania Constitution. We conclude that the Township's ordinance is not invalid under state law or the TCA and will reverse. PCS systems are arranged around service </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972652.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David Dodwell on the basis that the judgment was void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Koehler argues that the judgment was not void because Dodwell was served in accordance with the terms of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Are each 50 percent shareholders in Windward Properties. P. 60(b)(4).1 The district court found that it had lacked personal jurisdiction over Dodwell because service was ineffective and Dodwell did not waive that defect. The court also concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over the suit because (1) WPL was necessary and indispensable to the prosecution of the shareholder's derivative claim. (2) WPL's citizenship was therefore relevant in determining whether the parties were diverse. (3) WPL's presence in the action would have destroyed diversity. Having determined that the default judgment was void. The district court concluded that WPL was a necessary and indispensable party to the negligent misrepresentation claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E387F8447EB62A488256F090072552A/$file/0355114.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is the latest round in a protracted trademark dispute between Jerry's Famous Deli ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/964208P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Games of chance are played on coin operated. The video lottery machines are privately owned. The Lottery Commission investigated the video lottery machine market and concluded there was effective competition. We are among the majority of courts and commentators who read Matsushita more broadly. The private sector participants in the South Dakota video lottery are defined by statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dinwiddie from further violating FACE and from engaging in a number of other activities whenever she is within 500 feet of a facility that provides reproductive health services. We affirm the District Court's holding that FACE is constitutional and that Mrs. I. Regina Rene Dinwiddie is an opponent of abortion who. A clinic where abortions are performed. Intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been. A physician who is the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood. Gunn [a physician who was killed in 1993 by an opponent of abortion] . . .. He is not in the world anymore . . .. Includes the building or structure in which the facility is located. (2) Interfere with. You have not seen violence yet until you see what we do to you. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-2222.opn.html">BIVENS GARDENS OFFICE BLDG., INC. V. BARNETT BANKS OF FLORIDA, INC. (5/4/1998, NO. 96-2222)<BR></A><BR> We hold that although the district court was correct to grant judgment in favor of the defendants on several of the claims. That Konstand and Karns have stated shareholder derivative claims for which they have RICO standing. The development was to include a shopping center. Konstand was originally the majority shareholder of BCI. James Karns was the largest minority shareholder. While the other half was owned by approximately twenty limited partners. From the time that it was built until it was sold in 1981. Was never constructed.</P> <P> Konstand funded these ventures both through the sales of BCI shares and BGH limited partnerships. Was a principal lender. 000 from defendant University City Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-2222.opn.html">BIVENS GARDENS OFFICE BLDG., INC. V. BARNETT BANKS OF FLORIDA, INC. (5/4/1998, NO. 96-2222)<BR></A><BR> We hold that although the district court was correct to grant judgment in favor of the defendants on several of the claims. That Konstand and Karns have stated shareholder derivative claims for which they have RICO standing. The development was to include a shopping center. Konstand was originally the majority shareholder of BCI. James Karns was the largest minority shareholder. While the other half was owned by approximately twenty limited partners. From the time that it was built until it was sold in 1981. Was never constructed.</P> <P> Konstand funded these ventures both through the sales of BCI shares and BGH limited partnerships. Was a principal lender. 000 from defendant University City Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5030.html">THE BUBBLE ROOM V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001235.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This location was within a few miles of Charleston Crab House's Wappoo Creek location on James Island. The Landry's Seafood House was HUNT MASTERS v. To determine whether a mark is protected. We must ascertain whether it is (1) generic. A generic mark refers to the genus or class of which a particular product is a member. Both arbitrary and fanciful marks are totally unrelated to the product. Are deemed inherently distinctive and are entitled to protection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0242p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal requires us to interpret the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216163.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gumson who are visually impaired and use the Internet through a special software program called a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2312.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rodriguez Suris & Godreau were on consolidated briefs. Lance Belsome was on brief. With whom Will Kemp and Monita F. Were on brief. Should expenses indigenous to a court's handling of mass disaster litigation be reallocated once the winners and losers have been judicially determined? Finding that the court's abrupt slamming of these doors was improvident. Among the many 2 successful innovations that brought the litigation to a celeritous conclusion were (1) the creation of a Joint Document Depository (JDD). Each of whom was responsible for dispersing filings among his or her constituents. The court periodically requisitioned fresh monies as funds on hand were depleted. The orders were silent as to (i) whether or not the court planned to readjust defendants' contributions in light of future developments. 1Because the mechanics of the allocation process are not critical for present purposes. The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) and the defendant San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Corporation were assessed a total of $100. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/97-3009a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. That the jury was incorrectly instructed as to the firearm possession count. That his sentence for violating the felon in possession law was incorrectly assessed in light of the life sentences he received for one of the robberies. We conclude that the Hobbs Act contention is unpersuasive. Hold that the instructional error was harmless and that the district court did not clearly err in ruling that the government had met its burden to show service of the information. He was also charged with two counts of assault on a police officer pursuant to D.C. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1263.htm">99-1263 -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000<BR></A><BR> The manager and acting director of the restaurant where he was employed as a waiter. Herring was serving a period of probation under Keenan's supervision. The district court rejected Keenan's contention that she was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. We conclude that there is a constitutional right to privacy that protects an individual from the disclosure of information concerning a person's health. Because we hold that it was not clearly established. That a probationer had a constitutionally protected right to privacy regarding information concerning his or her medical condition. <p> <center>I</center> <p> Because we are reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following facts are alleged in the second amended complaint. <p> On or about September of 1993. At no time did he inform Keenan that the results of the HIV test were positive. Herring was employed as a waiter at the 50's Café. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E53F2E57F7A3CB9E88256EDD0052164F/$file/0230301.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: The final sentence of the second full paragraph on slip op. 2878 that reads. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/991821.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to a non profit corporation pr oviding residential human services programs for mentally ill and mentally retarded adults. We will vacate the judgment and remand for further findings. I. Background Plaintiffs are current and for mer employees of Defendant Resources for Human Development. RHD is a Pennsylvania non profit corporation that pr ovides its clients mentally ill and mentally retar ded adults with human services programs such as community health 2 centers. Overtime pay is equal to 1.5 times an employee's regular pay rate. Both programs are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8599301379A3A2988256AE6005BD8E4/$file/0017330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's decision to abstain from deciding whether the Nevada State Engineer's 14546 denial of the United States' water permit applications is preempted by federal law. We hold that abstention was improper and remand for adjudication on the merits. Substantial amounts of money and effort have been expended to evaluate Yucca Mountain's suitability and to prepare it for use as a repository in the event that the President and Congress ultimately designate it for that purpose. 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101 10270 (1997). 2 Id. at § 10131(b)(1). 3 Id. at § 10132(b)(1)(A). Attest that DOE's uses of the water will include. Are not limited to. Nevada law allows the State Engineer to deny a permit application for only three reasons: (1) there is no unappropriated water at the proposed source. Or (3) the proposed use threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest.5 Because the parties stipulated that sufficient water was available and no one claimed to have conflicting rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964149.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See 21 U.S.C.A. Judge Russell participated in the hearing of this case at oral argument but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 § 846 (West Supp. 1997) and possession of crack cocaine base. Harris were convicted of operating a crack distribution group and crack house in Carrboro. The deliveries were made by Merritt. The telephone calls and deliveries were recorded. The deliveries were witnessed by law enforcement officers. A joint indictment was returned in August 1995 against Grady. We affirm as to each.2 1 All defendants were convicted of Count 1 of the indictment. The remainder of the counts were for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Grady was convicted of Count 2. Merritt was convicted of Counts 2 through 5. Harris was convicted of Counts 4 and 5. Atwater was awaiting separate trial for his alleged participation in the conspiracy. 2 Defendants also collectively challenge 21 U.S.C. § 841 and § 2D1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974571.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Demby was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). She was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment. We find that all of Demby's claims are meritless. The Government established that Demby was an active participant in a drug trafficking scheme that distributed large amounts of crack cocaine along Route One in the counties of Dumfries and Woodbridge. There was also testimony that Demby was seen directly handling the crack cocaine by carrying it in her purse on several occasions and joining a coconspirator at a meeting with a supplier. There was testimony that Demby drove two co conspirators around while they distributed drugs. Denying that she facilitated drug trafficking and that she knew her boyfriend and his associates were drug traffickers. All of which were critical in establishing Demby's participation in the conspiracy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-12813.ma2.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/7/2000, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Claiming that their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the County. Owens also claimed that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Were caused by the same unconstitutional jail conditions and jail practices. On the grounds that Butler County and the Butler County Commission are protected from this suit by legislative immunity. That Sheriff Harris is protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-1534a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief for amicus curiae. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-3242.opa.html">FREDETTE V. BVP MANAGEMENT ASSOCS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fredette v. Appellee BVP argues that we should affirm the summary judgment because same sex harassment claims are wholly outside the purview of Title VII. Fredette was a waiter in BVP's restaurant. Who is homosexual. Was the maitre d' or manager. There was similar evidence with respect to other male victims. There was evidence that Mr. ISSUE<p> <p> The single issue presented in this appeal is whether. The sexual harassment of a male employee by a homosexual male supervisor is actionable under Title VII.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-12813.man.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (5/30/2000, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Claiming that their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the County. Owens also claimed that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Were caused by the same unconstitutional jail conditions and jail practices. On the grounds that Butler County and the Butler County Commission are protected from this suit by legislative immunity. That Sheriff Harris is protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1346p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two significant constitutional questions are presented for our review. The first is whether the government's use of acquitted codefendant Mercedes Travis. Who Voigt alleges was counsel to the Trust and to him personally. The second is whether the district court violated Voigt's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when. We must decide whether those statutes require formal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-10872.man.html">PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)<BR></A><BR> Both of which accompanied the release.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/031539np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Mohamed is an Egyptian national who entered this country as a visitor for pleasure on June 14. Mohamed was informed by a man named Mohamed Al Said that he could apply for a green card prior to his visa expiring. The men went to the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-12813.ma2.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/7/2000, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Claiming that their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the County. Owens also claimed that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Were caused by the same unconstitutional jail conditions and jail practices. On the grounds that Butler County and the Butler County Commission are protected from this suit by legislative immunity. That Sheriff Harris is protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-3242.opa.html">FREDETTE V. BVP MANAGEMENT ASSOCS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fredette v. Appellee BVP argues that we should affirm the summary judgment because same sex harassment claims are wholly outside the purview of Title VII. Fredette was a waiter in BVP's restaurant. Who is homosexual. Was the maitre d' or manager. There was similar evidence with respect to other male victims. There was evidence that Mr. ISSUE<p> <p> The single issue presented in this appeal is whether. The sexual harassment of a male employee by a homosexual male supervisor is actionable under Title VII.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-12813.man.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (5/30/2000, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Claiming that their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the County. Owens also claimed that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Were caused by the same unconstitutional jail conditions and jail practices. On the grounds that Butler County and the Butler County Commission are protected from this suit by legislative immunity. That Sheriff Harris is protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953242.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the case comes to us on appeal the only remaining defendant is BVP. That claim was settled and is no longer part of the case. 1 On appeal. Appellee BVP argues that we should affirm the summary judgment because same sex harassment claims are wholly outside the purview of Title VII. Fredette was a waiter in BVP's restaurant. Who is homosexual. Was the maitre d' or manager. There was similar evidence with respect to other male victims. There was evidence that Mr. ISSUE The single issue presented in this appeal is whether. The sexual harassment of a male employee by a homosexual male supervisor is actionable under Title VII.3 III. There is simply no suggestion in these statutory terms that the cause of action is limited to opposite gender contexts. focus on the statute's causation requirement i.e. Sunshine's propositions for sexual favors and his real or threatened retaliation were either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-10872.man.html">PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)<BR></A><BR> Both of which accompanied the release.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611826.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm the district court's determination that Deputy Terry was entitled to qualified immunity for effecting a warrantless arrest of McClish within his home. Because Holmberg was never convicted of a crime. We reverse the district court's judgment that his § 1983 wrongful arrest claim was barred by Heck v. The essential facts and procedural history are these. Who was not home when the deputies first arrived. The underlying conflict between the neighbors seems to have arisen over a property dispute. A number of the incidents involving threats or profanity shouted across the property line seem to have occurred when Michael Padzur was clearing brush from the disputed area. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0261p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district court erred by: (1) determining that the Warrens' takings claim was ripe. Have owned and operated a Dairy Queen at the northwest corner of the intersection of Columbus Road and Sunset Drive in Athens. The Dairy Queen is the only source of income for Charles and Ruth Warren. It is helpful to describe the Dairy Queen and its immediate surroundings. There are head in parking spaces located in the island created by the arc of the drive thru lane. There is an entrance to the restaurant parking lot from Columbus Road. There is no access around the back of the building from the north side to the west side abutting Sunset Drive. The Sunset Drive exit is only about twenty feet from the Sunset/Columbus intersection. The Dairy Queen's drive thru lane was constructed after the Warren family decided in 1998 that a drive thru would increase business and improve access for customers. Explaining that the proposed drive thru and1part of the existing Dairy Queen building were located on a public rightof way owned by the City. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0460p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where Thomas had been living and which is near Lauderdale County. One of the doors to the truck was open. Four patrol cars in total were parked at the house. See also Thomas Br. at 6 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-8092.htm">99-8092 -- ENGBERG V. STATE OF WYOMING -- 09/12/2001<BR></A><BR> Engberg's claims depends in part on whether a piece of evidence excluded from trial was sufficient to cast doubt upon the verdict. In late 1981 he was beset by financial difficulties: he had not drawn a paycheck in several weeks. The rent on the family's trailer was overdue. The family was regularly pawning household goods to meet immediate needs. A Wells Fargo armored car was robbed as guards picked up approximately $4. Were exiting the store when a man near the door said. A grocery checker who was leaving for the day. Who was Ms. Otto was taken to the police station. The hypnosis was reportedly unsuccessful. Otto was too upset to continue. Stating that he was tall (around 5'10 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/98-3011.htm">98-3011 -- HAMPTON V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES INC. -- 04/24/2001<BR></A><BR> Hampton </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2594.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gary Esterman was tried and convicted on two counts of wire fraud. That the district 2 No. 01 2594 court erred in finding that his Russian business partner was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-1181.htm">98-1181 -- CHESSIN V. KEYSTONE RESORT MANAGEMENT INC. -- 07/15/1999<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs seek to recover overtime pay at one and a half times the rate at which they were regularly employed. (2) Arapahoe Basin is separate from Keystone for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/021744P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was in a non workrelated automobile accident in October 1997. Providing a copy of Alexander's written job description and requesting the following information: As the Benefits Mgr. at The Northland Inn . . . it is my responsibility to respond to any type of work restrictions set forth by a physician. . . . [A]lthough this is not a work related injury. I must have confirmation from you that Ms. Alexander is able to perform the essential functions of her position. . . . Alexander is asked to vacuum. She is to do no heavy or repetitive pushing or pulling. Will you release her to vacuum no more than 5x daily? (2) Due to her restricted bending. She is unable to view the floor around the bed in a guest suite. I must ask you if she is able to. Northland then terminated Alexander because she was not able to perform an essential function of her job. Alexander told 3 the Northland supervisors that she was working with a physical therapist to assist her in vacuuming at home and asked Northland to give her time to develop this skill. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/043828P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kelvin Washington were each convicted of felony murder. Turner was also convicted of attempting to murder two law enforcement agents while they were transporting her to a federal correctional institution. I. The armed robbery and felony murder of which all the defendants were convicted took place at the Davis Club. One of whom was carrying a shotgun. A club employee who was preparing to close up for the evening. Her friend Brian Adams who was keeping her company as she finished work. Adams was subsequently found dead from gunshot wounds. Chief United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 3 1 Shortly after Adams was shot. This was something they did every night as part of their jobs but they had arrived later than usual that evening because a failed health inspection at their own club had forced them to stay late and clean. When Oeffler told them that a robbery was in progress. They were eventually apprehended by the robbers who wanted to know if they had pushed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1B6B2C7FDCD2D56488256A5E0056BCD2/$file/9917294.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must address whether Clicks' claimed trade dress was nonfunctional. Whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the two establishments. Because there are disputed issues of material fact on each of these three questions. Sometime after the two Clicks facilities were already in existence. Was ostensibly involved in the design of Sixshooters both before and after he left Clicks. Clicks presented evidence that Chester and others affiliated with Sixshooters visited Clicks and engaged in detailed inspection and measuring of Clicks' interior features while the design of Sixshooters was being formulated. Clicks also claims that Sixshooters was built in the path of Clicks' planned expansion. 6737 In April 1997 Clicks filed suit under the Lanham Act. Various electrical details as well as air conditioning features to the extent they are part of the look. We must determine whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law and whether there are any genuine issues of material fact. It is well settled that restaurants and similar establishments may have a total visual appearance that constitutes protectable trade dress. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A8DEA501CD6318F88256E5A00707D09/$file/0017330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's decision to abstain from deciding whether the Nevada State Engineer's 14546 denial of the United States' water permit applications is preempted by federal law. We hold that abstention was improper and remand for adjudication on the merits. Substantial amounts of money and effort have been expended to evaluate Yucca Mountain's suitability and to prepare it for use as a repository in the event that the President and Congress ultimately designate it for that purpose. 1 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101 10270 (1997). 2 Id. at § 10131(b)(1). 3 Id. at § 10132(b)(1)(A). Attest that DOE's uses of the water will include. Are not limited to. Nevada law allows the State Engineer to deny a permit application for only three reasons: (1) there is no unappropriated water at the proposed source. Or (3) the proposed use threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest.5 Because the parties stipulated that sufficient water was available and no one claimed to have conflicting rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F46FFB2566E1E9088256E92006DC423/$file/0250539.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether the district court committed reversible error by denying Appellant's pretrial motion to suppress the evidence where that search was prompted by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58BF9C8F57FF724188256B66007D76F2/$file/0056267.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cellular's core allegation is that one of the partners breached the partnership agreement by transferring or assigning its general and limited partnership interests. We agree with the district court that the agreement was not violated. Cellular was an original partner of the Los Angeles Partnership. The Los Angeles Partnership Agreement is based on a form agreement that was developed for structuring cellular telephone partnerships throughout the country (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E33CA476D6897D1C882571C6007C7150/$file/0550253.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that four of his acquaintances were terrorists involved in a plot to bomb several shopping malls near a federal building in Los Angeles. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). MOHAMED 9403 I Mohamed is a native and citizen of Tanzania. He provided a false name and stated that he was a former member of an al Qaeda cell. He reported that a terrorist group with ties to India and Pakistan was planning an attack on the United States. He stated that the targets of the attack were several shopping malls near the UCLA campus. He claimed he was providing this information to improve his chances of becoming a United States citizen. Mohamed knew that the information was false and that there was no planned attack. He later admitted that the hoax was an attempt to impose retribution on the four individuals he named. MOHAMED a target because he was familiar with that location from time spent in Los Angeles. He admits that he wanted the threat to be taken seriously because he was angry at his acquaintances and wanted them to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE0D80810913440D88256E5A00707B6B/$file/9917294.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must address whether Clicks' claimed trade dress was nonfunctional. Whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the two establishments. Because there are disputed issues of material fact on each of these three questions. Sometime after the two Clicks facilities were already in existence. Was ostensibly involved in the design of Sixshooters both before and after he left Clicks. Clicks presented evidence that Chester and others affiliated with Sixshooters visited Clicks and engaged in detailed inspection and measuring of Clicks' interior features while the design of Sixshooters was being formulated. Clicks also claims that Sixshooters was built in the path of Clicks' planned expansion. 6737 In April 1997 Clicks filed suit under the Lanham Act. Various electrical details as well as air conditioning features to the extent they are part of the look. We must determine whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law and whether there are any genuine issues of material fact. It is well settled that restaurants and similar establishments may have a total visual appearance that constitutes protectable trade dress. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1105.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. P.C.</U> were on brief. The court ruled that Sawyer was prosecuted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-7225a.html">ATHRIDGE THOMAS P. V. RIVAS, HILDA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-7133.htm">00-7133 -- U.S. V. HOLDER -- 07/10/2001<BR></A><BR> Fred Lloyd Holder was charged in the Eastern District of Oklahoma with murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/002135.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Bankruptcy Court held that this condition was unreasonable and issued an injunction requiring the BOA to allow BAPS to use its own uniformed volunteers for traffic direction and occupancy limit compliance. BAPS is an acronym. The full name of the organization is Bochasanwasi Shree Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. 2 by the prior owner as a nightclub. Was contingent upon BAPS obtaining permission from the BOA to use the land as a house of worship. Because the property is located in an industrial zone. The Township denied the application on the ground that a use variance was requir ed under New Jersey law. Most of these problems were later discussed by BAPS's engineer. One of the chief problems McGrath identified was the fear that the property had insufficient parking spaces to accommodate its anticipated use. Testified that BAPS was willing to limit the temple's occupancy based on the number of available parking spaces. The number of parking spaces that would be available for worshippers' use is a matter of dispute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0306n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Et al. are citizens of Albania. Ivzi is Adriatik's father. Ivzjol and Miranda are Adriatik's wife and child. They came from a wealthy family and were involved in political activities during and after the communist government. Much of it under the communist regime that was hostile to the Nazarko family and other </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CDFF89B8AA679BA88256E3E007A8AF5/$file/0270439.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He also challenges the BIA's determination that he is ineligible to adjust his status to that of permanent resident as a derivative beneficiary of his parents' visa. The latter denial was based on a determination that Padash was not statutorily eligible for permanent residence because. Having turned twenty one before his visa was adjudicated. Padash was seventeen. His claim is based on two incidents of violence that occurred at his father's restaurant. When Padash told the customers that the item was unavailable. There was a police station across the street. Shortly after the fight Padash was born in India and resided with his parents in Poona. He obtained an Iranian passport because his grandparents were born there. 2 PADASH v. Although Padash was not present on that occasion. Padash testified that because the current regime in India is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF8DD483C7E3A4CB882571EE00777F0D/$file/0356736.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: In this case we are asked to review the decision of the bankruptcy appellate panel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1453a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Leo were on brief.</P> <P> Jill A. Were on brief.</P> <P> James B. Hiatt were on brief for </P> <P>amicus curiae American Federation of Labor and Congress </P> <P>of Industrial Organizations</P> <P> Before: Henderson. NLRB) finding that </P> <P>Ross violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor </P> <P>Relations Act (Act) when (1) it discharged an employee on </P> <P>account of his union support and (2) its supervisor informed </P> <P>the same employee that no soliciting was allowed on company </P> <P>premises. We uphold the Board's finding as to the discharge </P> <P>because it is supported by substantial evidence and set aside </P> <P>its finding regarding the solicitation admonition because it is </P> <P>time barred under section 10(b) of the Act. </P> <P>Three incidents during the organizing campaign were alleged </P> <P>below to constitute unfair labor practices by Ross.</P> <P> First. He removed </P> <P>the postings and later admonished each of them separately </P> <P>that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-1453a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Leo were on brief. Were on brief. Hiatt were on brief for amicus curiae American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Before: Henderson. NLRB) finding that Ross violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) when (1) it discharged an employee on account of his union support and (2) its supervisor informed the same employee that no soliciting was allowed on company premises. We uphold the Board's finding as to the discharge because it is supported by substantial evidence and set aside its finding regarding the solicitation admonition because it is time barred under section 10(b) of the Act. Three incidents during the organizing campaign were alleged below to constitute unfair labor practices by Ross. He removed the postings and later admonished each of them separately that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0751p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Intertwined with certain procedural questions is one substantive question of Pennsylvania law. That question concerns the construction of a so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-3094a.html">USA V. WEST GARY S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971667A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each alleged she: (1) was delayed in receiving a firearm. (2) was not promoted. (3) was not selected to attend the police academy operated by the Vir Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 ginia Commonwealth University (the Police Academy). (4) was discharged. Because she is a woman.1 Johnson alone alleged a sexual harassment claim. Both oral and written examinations are required. Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to Walter H. Johnson alleges that she was constructively discharged. 3 (Department Supervisor Miller). Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to S. The decision to recommend an individual for promotion to a rank above corporal was made by a panel of individuals from both inside and outside VUU. While the Department's Chief of Police was not a member of this panel. Chief Wells was responsible for the daily operation and administration of the Department. Chief Wells was authorized to select who among the Department's officers could attend the Police Academy.2 Of relevance to this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D86913A13FE7318C8825704D00564206/$file/0330285.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: 1. Because we cannot </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/44B126EF588A40E188256E76007A294F/$file/0215867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bronster is hereby deleted as a Defendant in this case as she is no longer the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii. It is ORDERED that the caption in this case is hereby amended to remove Margery S. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Chevron is one of two gasoline refiners and one of six wholesalers in Hawaii. Which are leased to independent dealers. After determining that the amount of gross rent receipts was not satisfactory. The price is unilaterally set by Chevron. These cases teach that application of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C832AD1BC5041A17882572E4008101E4/$file/0417529.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the regulation passes constitutional muster and is not ultra vires as to its governing statute. Dang was interviewed under oath by an INS officer regarding her citizenship application. Dang was asked. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3680_046.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is being permitted to litigate her case under a pseudonym. Was a highschool student hired as a part time ice cream </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36F241E6EF9CAD5988257015004E3218/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows. Is deleted. Judge Berzon's opinion dissenting in part is amended as follows. Footnote 1 of the dissenting opinion is revised to read as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5157.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Julie Spencer was struck by a vehicle while walking through an Oklahoma Wal Mart parking lot. They argue Wal Mart breached its duty to (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Wal Mart did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/94-4195.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MENDEZ<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. They decided against robbing her because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3820D3383720EBA88256E68007C74B5/$file/0215867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Chevron is one of two gasoline refiners and one of six wholesalers in Hawaii. Which are leased to independent dealers. LINGLE amount of gross rent receipts was not satisfactory. The price is unilaterally set by Chevron. These cases teach that application of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-4166.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)<BR></A><BR> The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-4166.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)<BR></A><BR> The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1849.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fuentes Agostini with whom Dominguez & Totti was on brief for appellant Torres Maldonada and Gotay Colon. Were on brief for appellee. That their motions for severance and for suppression of evidence were improperly denied. Two of the rooms were registered to false names. Santiago Alicea was wearing a bulletproof jacket. Is not a party to this appeal. 4 4 unidentified individual. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515808.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Many of whom were admitted co conspirators testifying in exchange for immunity from prosecution for their roles in Edouard's charged offenses and/or a possible reduction in their sentences. Sibilia had first met Edouard in 1998 while they were both in federal custody in Miami. Sibilia learned that Edouard was also smuggling cocaine from Haiti to New York via commercial airliners. Sibilia also claimed that he twice sent cocaine through Edouard using this method and that he was paid by Hughes after the cocaine was sold in New York. The night before a shipment was to leave the Port au Prince airport. The container was then loaded with suitcases and placed onto a flight headed for JFK. Hubert and Scutt were arrested. Hubert was ultimately convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. The proceeds from the sales were shipped back to Haiti on commercial airliners arriving at the Port au Prince Airport. Perseverance employees were paid in U.S. currency. 8 Despite the modest profits generated by the lottery business. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1427p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That it was seriously considering changes in its pension benefits program. We will apply the formulation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI3NDYtY3IgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-2746-cr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Richard Bondi argue that Scheidler II invalidates all of the Hobbs Act counts in this case that were premised on the extortion of intangible property rights. Which can be satisfied regardless of whether the property right at issue is tangible or intangible. We remand Peter Gotti's case for consideration of resentencing pursuant to This decision is frequently abbreviated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI3NDYtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2746-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 in which the Supreme Court tightened the requirements for finding that a defendant has 1 This decision is frequently abbreviated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001277.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AT&T contends that it did not violate the FMLA because the illness for which Miller sought FMLA leave an episode of the flu was not a serious health condition as defined by the Act and implementing regulations. That if Miller's flu was a serious health condition under the applicable regulations. Those regulations are contrary to congressional intent and are therefore invalid. AT&T claims that the award should have been limited by after acquired evidence and Miller's failure to mitigate her damages.1 We conclude that none of AT&T's challenges warrants reversal. There is no reason to disturb the award of attorneys' fees. 2 An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A292AF0B3AF3D57288256FBA0006FB50/$file/0330285.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues he did not validly waive his right to remain silent after he was eventually given Miranda warnings. The warnings became </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E28ADDED7F9C051388256FBE0077758F/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the district court should have dismissed the treaty based claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereby breaching its fiduciary responsibilities to the Tribe under the Treaty. [1] These claims are not properly brought under the FTCA. Would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added).2 The Tribe's claims against the United States are properly characterized not as tort claims. The claims are thus quite different from those in cases like Berkovitz v. Which was rejected on November 20. The Coast Guard acted negligently in its operation of a lighthouse because it did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/94-4195.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MENDEZ<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. They decided against robbing her because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0054p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DiCarlo was terminated near the end of his probationary employment period for what the Postal Service asserted as unsatisfactory work performance. DiCarlo alleges that he was terminated on the basis of national origin. He also asserts that his termination was in retaliation for the Equal Employment Opportunity ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992024.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We will describe here only those facts relevant to resolution of the issues presented on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042850np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree and so will vacate the District Court's order of dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings 2 consistent with this opinion. We recount the factual and procedural history only as they are relevant to the following discussion. The Plaintiffs alleged that they were kept under the complete control of the Defendants. Were paid no wages for their work. Were housed in deplorable conditions. Were threatened with death when they stopped working at the restaurant. 2003.1 The service claimed to have been achieved by the Plaintiffs is detailed in their brief and was found to be ineffective as not conforming to the service rules set out in Fed. While the District Court's order in this respect was not appealed. The Plaintiffs have included all of the Defendants in their Amended Complaint. (3) list five aliases for defendant Frank Chan including Kai Tung Chan who was formerly named as a separate defendant (thereby eliminating Kai Tung Chan as a named defendant). The Plaintiffs complied with the Court's order and default was entered on July 9. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/95-8049.wpd.html">HENDRY V. SCHNEIDER<BR></A><BR> The chronology out of which the present controversy arises is essential to an understanding of our resolution of the issues raised on appeal. Named as defendants in the amended complaint were Dewey Schneider 1. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0144n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. Is a citizen of Iraq who was born in Baghdad. The application alleges that Karomi fled Iraq because he assaulted an Iraqi guard who was assaulting his father. It states that his father was afraid of saying anything because his family's ethnicity (Chaldean) and religion (Assyrian Christian) caused the family to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct96/95-2346.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. UTTER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Although the evidence presented by the government was thin. We conclude that it was sufficient to support the convictions and that the evidence established a substantial nexus with interstate commerce. Were tragically killed as they attempted to fight the fire. The two firefighters were endeavoring to locate the source of the fire when they were overcome by smoke. Although the property was deeded in Susan's name. Some checks were returned for insufficient funds. Yelvington was forced to pay the taxes.<p> Utter also failed to pay the premiums owed his insurance carrier. Although the application was apparently approved. Utter never actually obtained insurance as he was unable to pay the premium on the policy.<p> In June of 1991. Stormy's was destroyed by fire on September 2.<p> At trial. The evidence was intended to establish a motive for the alleged arson. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct96/95-2346.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. UTTER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Although the evidence presented by the government was thin. We conclude that it was sufficient to support the convictions and that the evidence established a substantial nexus with interstate commerce. Were tragically killed as they attempted to fight the fire. The two firefighters were endeavoring to locate the source of the fire when they were overcome by smoke. Although the property was deeded in Susan's name. Some checks were returned for insufficient funds. Yelvington was forced to pay the taxes.<p> Utter also failed to pay the premiums owed his insurance carrier. Although the application was apparently approved. Utter never actually obtained insurance as he was unable to pay the premium on the policy.<p> In June of 1991. Stormy's was destroyed by fire on September 2.<p> At trial. The evidence was intended to establish a motive for the alleged arson. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952346.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Although the evidence presented by the government was thin. We conclude that it was sufficient to support the convictions and that the evidence established a substantial nexus with interstate Honorable Myron H. Were tragically killed as they attempted to fight the fire. The two firefighters were endeavoring to locate the source of the fire when they were overcome by smoke. Yelvington retained a mortgage on the Although the property was deeded in Susan's name. Some checks were returned for insufficient funds. Yelvington was forced to pay the taxes. Although the application was apparently approved. Utter never actually obtained insurance as he was unable to pay the premium on the policy. Stormy's was destroyed by fire on September 2. The evidence was intended to As described above. The government also established that (1) the restaurant's sales and payroll taxes were behind in payment. (2) the restaurant's liquor license was in danger of being revoked for failure to pay the surcharge tax on alcohol sales. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-7027.htm">97-7027 -- LOCKARD V. PIZZA HUT INC. -- 12/14/1998<BR></A><BR> Inc. is a Pizza Hut franchisee that owns and operates the Pizza Hut restaurant in Atoka. Inc. publishes policy bulletins and complaint procedures which are utilized by all Pizza Hut restaurants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953004.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021642.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The parties have stipulated to all relevant facts. Whether Amsouth's liens were void under § 506(d) because Amsouth had not timely filed its claims. Which was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994. All of which were promulgated prior to Rule 7004(h). Congress could easily have included within Rule 7004(h) the same </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1630.html">DONALD H. RUMSFELD V. APPLIED COMPANIES<BR></A><BR> Filed a response to the petition for the appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the response were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='ms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-5067a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-11491.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GRAY (8/7/2001, NO. 00-11491)<BR></A><BR> Gray's principal argument is that the Government failed to prove that the conduct giving rise to the robbery charge had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce. Effect on interstate commerce.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-11491.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GRAY (8/7/2001, NO. 00-11491)<BR></A><BR> Gray's principal argument is that the Government failed to prove that the conduct giving rise to the robbery charge had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce. Effect on interstate commerce.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1110.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was John H. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Richard McManus. The four appellants in this case are Carnival Cruise Lines. Carnival operates passenger cruise ships and therefore is subject to the Harbor Maintenance Tax ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1688.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <U>Law Offices of Gabriel Dumont</U> was on brief. Stewart</U> were on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></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-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1447.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 50. Delete the sentence that starts with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-9533.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. THAM<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The first month the Thams were required to pay rent under their lease agreement. The Thams were forced to borrow $20. The Fortune Garden's rent check was returned for insufficient funds. The burned men were transported to local hospitals by ambulance and then transferred to the burn center in Augusta. Then saw that the building was on fire. Officer Gibson told Tham that if he was not able to speak in a way that he could understand. When Detective Robinson expressed surprise that Tham would travel to Kroger to get something to drink when his own restaurant was right down the road. Appellant Tham contends that the district court should have sentenced him under one of these provisions. Which would have resulted in a significantly lower sentencing range.<p> Instead. Part A (Offenses Against the Person) if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-9533.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. THAM<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The first month the Thams were required to pay rent under their lease agreement. The Thams were forced to borrow $20. The Fortune Garden's rent check was returned for insufficient funds. The burned men were transported to local hospitals by ambulance and then transferred to the burn center in Augusta. Then saw that the building was on fire. Officer Gibson told Tham that if he was not able to speak in a way that he could understand. When Detective Robinson expressed surprise that Tham would travel to Kroger to get something to drink when his own restaurant was right down the road. Appellant Tham contends that the district court should have sentenced him under one of these provisions. Which would have resulted in a significantly lower sentencing range.<p> Instead. Part A (Offenses Against the Person) if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991175.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By the time this action was commenced. The exterior appearances of AHM's facilities are somewhat similar. Each is a rectangular building with a simulated tower. The roofs reflect different architectural styles and are constructed of dissimilar materials. Booth seating is located generally on one side of the island or peninsula. Stool seating is located on the other. Numerous television monitors and video games are present. As are pool tables. They are not identical. The menus are extensive. More than 20 types of beer are served on tap. Marketing data indicate that customers dining with their families are AHM's most frequent guests. Inc. was preparing to open a facility in Raleigh named the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1296.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After her scheme was uncovered. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. She also was responsible for preparing program reports. She did not have the authority to approve immigration applications. <hr> In early 2005. 210 were deposited into Spear's personal bank account. Spear was charged with sixteen counts of embezzlement of government property as well as an enhancement provision that applies when the value of the embezzled property exceeds $1. The report concluded that neither enhancement was merited. Two sentencing levels were added. The district court relied on three grounds for the enhancement: (1) a letter submitted from a supervisor claiming Spear was in a position of trust. Discussion </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/675DE340D30DFDC788256F6B00586981/$file/0057118.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a trademark case. The contest is between a large Mexican grocery chain that has long used the mark. A small American chain that was the first to use the mark in the United States. In a locality where shoppers were familiar with the Mexican mark. The chain was quite successful. Two of the Baja stores were in Tijuana. Douray and Rafid have since controlled the two stores through various limited liability corporations.1 In 1995. Which was after the opening of the Dallos' first store and before the opening of their second. It did nothing about the Dallos' store despite Grupo Gigante's knowledge that the Dallos were using </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313858.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.1 We first hold that the SZO's provision excluding churches and synagogues from locations where private clubs and lodges are permitted violates the equal terms provision of RLUIPA. We must decide whether RLUIPA is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the First. Finding that it is. Midrash and Young Israel (collectively the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/93-5317.man.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/042826P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were not entitled to a fifteen year depreciation schedule. Which are generally depreciable over thirty years. Facilities that meet the requirement of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/93-5317.man.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0890p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the district court's order. We will remand the case to the district court for the proceedings we outline in this opinion. Which was the post petition portion of the fourth quarter wages it withheld for payment to the City of Farrell. The city contends that Begier held that a trust is created for the benefit of the taxing authority whenever an employer withholds a portion of an employee's wages as income taxes. Agreeing with the bankruptcy court that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1011.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The trustees of multiemployer welfare and pension funds have sued Corman under ERISA for failing to make contributions that the trustees claim Corman was required to make by collective bargaining agreements that it had made with the union effective in 1992. Between derailments there is work </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613035.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The subject line for that group was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2478_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the Secretary's request was not authorized under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D877D6A933A8024288256BE200747B09/$file/0035729.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a 9076 CHAO v. Whether the LMRDA's requirements for fair election procedures are superseded by the Civil Service Reform Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994062.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appellants) were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia of committing various federal narcotics and firearms violations arising out of a drug conspiracy of which Appellants were found to be members. That the district court should have severed Mann's trial from that of his co defendants. That the district court erred in concluding that Davis was on probation during his involvement in the conspiracy. I. Mann was a member of a drug conspiracy with. The seller of this cocaine was cooperating with the police. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Nine other codefendants were named in a 31 count indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for various federal narcotics and firearm violations related to the Virginia conspiracy. Which was alleged to have existed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-7042.htm">99-7042 -- CHICKASAW NATION V. U.S. -- 04/05/2000<BR></A><BR> The Nation alleges that these taxes were unlawfully assessed against its pull tab gaming activities pursuant to 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-7024.man.html">COOPER/T. SMITH, INC. V. NLRB (6/14/1999, NO. 97-7024)<BR></A><BR> That the NLRB should not have certified the union because the docking pilots are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-7024.man.html">COOPER/T. SMITH, INC. V. NLRB (6/14/1999, NO. 97-7024)<BR></A><BR> That the NLRB should not have certified the union because the docking pilots are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986241.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The church which the Defendants were convicted of burning. Contending that the indictment insufficiently defined the elements of the offense and the jury's verdict was inconsistent. Which was just down the road. (2) natural gas used to heat the church was purchased in Alabama. (4) the church was a dues paying member of the First Eastern Shore Missionary Baptist Church Association. There was no evidence that any member of St. There was no evidence that any interstate traveler had ever visited St. Defense counsel moved to set aside the jury's verdict with respect to the § 844(h)(1) conspiracy conviction on the ground that the verdict was inconsistent. This principle requires that a decision on a constitutional question is appropriate only after addressing the statutory questions. Rather § 844(i) is limited to buildings used in interstate commerce. § 844(i) requires the government to prove that St. 6 Joseph's Church was used in interstate commerce or an activity affecting interstate commerce. The Jones court set forth the method to determine whether damage or destruction of a building is properly prosecutable under § 844(i). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-5068.htm">02-5068 -- WELDING V. BIOS CORPORATION -- 01/06/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2231.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rivero Vergne and Moreda & Moreda were on brief. With whom Mercado & Soto was on brief. Including Baldorioty de Castro Avenue (the main thoroughfare leading to and from the airport).2 The labor unrest was open and notorious. There are two plaintiffs Carol Coyne and her husband. Since the insurer's liability is coextensive with its insured's. We treat the appeal as if Carol Coyne and Taber were the sole parties in interest. 2The obstructionist tactics met with some degree of success. This appeal ensued. 3A rational factfinder could infer that not only the man who blocked the Ford's path but also the rock throwers were strikers or strike sympathizers. 3 II. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/01-1471.htm">01-1471 -- ABUAN V. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. -- 12/30/2003<BR></A><BR> Who is of Hispanic and Filipino heritage and was over fifty years of age at the time of the alleged discriminatory acts. Asserted that he was subjected to national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. The case was tried to a jury. The record reflects the following facts. <p> Level 3 is a telecommunications company that began operations around the time Mr. He was one of the first people hired at Level 3. He was given the position of team leader and project manager directing the development of the NetExpert network management system. His compensation was determined by his band level. Abuan was placed in Band 5. His initial salary was $100. He was also eligible for a bonus of twenty five percent upon achievement of target goals and stock options that would become valuable only if Level 3's capital stock outperformed Standard &. Abuan's work was exemplary. The project was scheduled for completion in September 1998. Abuan presented evidence that all goals were met on schedule. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31F0472AE8A769E588257013007DAC1B/$file/0235971nographic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the constitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time. We also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain Appellants. Emily Maloney were also named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 5952 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE All persons who were arrested by the City of Seattle and its police agents or its affiliated police agents on December 1 and 2. Pursuant to the defendants' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2479_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR> The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2108.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Wistow & Barylick Inc. was on brief. Cavanagh & Cooney were on brief. She was twice falsely reassured (whether in honest error is not clear) that one had been called. They could not locate a pulse and discovered that the decedent's airway was blocked. Resuscitative efforts restored the decedent's heart to a normal rhythm and he was transported celeritously to a nearby hospital. Two are in the forefront. The centerpiece of the defendant's appeal is the assertion that the evidence did not forge a causal link between the failure promptly to summon an ambulance and the ensuing death. Since New Jersey law is less than explicit on one key issue that concerns us. As long as these signposts are legible. Our task is to ascertain the rule the state court would most likely follow under the circumstances. This kind of predictive approach is among our conceptions of law itself. 461 (1897) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/166F48FF79457FB188256A8700551E21/$file/0015136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question we are presented with in this appeal is whether a sidewalk constructed on private property to replace a public sidewalk. Is a public forum subject to the protections of the First Amendment. Seeking a declaratory judgment that the replacement sidewalk constructed on its property is not a public forum and an injunction requiring the County to recognize and enforce the Venetian's right to exclude labor union demonstrators from the sidewalk. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Venetian Casino Resort is a large hotel and casino complex located on the former site of the Sands Casino on 8951 Las Vegas Boulevard South </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/f0713705b53e7e1f88256e5a00707be6/$FILE/0015136.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question we are presented with in this appeal is whether a sidewalk constructed on private property to replace a public sidewalk. Is a public forum subject to the protections of the First Amendment. Seeking a declaratory judgment that the replacement sidewalk constructed on its property is not a public forum and an injunction requiring the County to recognize and enforce the Venetian's right to exclude labor union demonstrators from the sidewalk. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Venetian Casino Resort is a large hotel and casino complex located on the former site of the Sands Casino on 8951 Las Vegas Boulevard South </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0713705B53E7E1F88256E5A00707BE6/$file/0015136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question we are presented with in this appeal is whether a sidewalk constructed on private property to replace a public sidewalk. Is a public forum subject to the protections of the First Amendment. Seeking a declaratory judgment that the replacement sidewalk constructed on its property is not a public forum and an injunction requiring the County to recognize and enforce the Venetian's right to exclude labor union demonstrators from the sidewalk. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Venetian Casino Resort is a large hotel and casino complex located on the former site of the Sands Casino on 8951 Las Vegas Boulevard South </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR> The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/166f48ff79457fb188256a8700551e21/$FILE/0015136.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question we are presented with in this appeal is whether a sidewalk constructed on private property to replace a public sidewalk. Is a public forum subject to the protections of the First Amendment. Seeking a declaratory judgment that the replacement sidewalk constructed on its property is not a public forum and an injunction requiring the County to recognize and enforce the Venetian's right to exclude labor union demonstrators from the sidewalk. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Venetian Casino Resort is a large hotel and casino complex located on the former site of the Sands Casino on 8951 Las Vegas Boulevard South </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-4741.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MATOS (9/17/1999, NO. 98-4741)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</P> <P> Jose Antonio Rodriguez Matos ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-4741.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MATOS (9/17/1999, NO. 98-4741)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</P> <P> Jose Antonio Rodriguez Matos ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0040n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The relevant facts are largely undisputed. Tigrett II1 is a developer and promoter of restaurant and entertainment venues. He was chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of HOB Entertainment. It was in connection with his efforts to promote the House of Blues concept that Tigrett personally incurred the $5 million expense which is at the center of this litigation. His name is consistently spelled in the more conventional way. While the discrepancy is noted in appellant's brief at p. 1. He has not directly advised which version is correct and has not moved to correct the case caption. Appellant is referred to herein as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1734p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Indigent inmates are guaranteed care. Their prison accounts are debited for the relevant charges. The following facts are uncontested or were found by the district court. Between 100 and 120 are federal inmates housed under contract with the federal government. The remaining 550 inmates are held under state law. Approximately 35% of the inmate population is Hispanic. Adopted a program under which the inmates held under state law are generally charged small fees when they seek health care. The purpose of the fee program is not to generate revenue but to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6141.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Krystle Rogers was killed and her passengers James Brad Dooley. Anna Christine Harper were injured when her vehicle collided with one driven by Randall Albright. Who was intoxicated. Inc. d/b/a Anheuser Busch Sales of Tulsa (which will be referred to individually and collectively as Anheuser Busch). Plaintiffs alleged that Anheuser Busch was liable under negligence and wrongful death causes of action because its employees had served beer to Albright despite his noticeable intoxication at an event that it sponsored and for which it supplied beer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Is in Stillwater. Advertising materials were to contain such slogans as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI<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> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1374.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mitchell</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Who was attempting to respond to the same incident under a city policy (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC965F7C79368A3D88256D96006F583F/$file/9750468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants were charged with various offenses arising from their involvement with the Mexican Mafia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. SHRYOCK 12843 of the several issues are contained in the portions of this opinion in which those issues are addressed. The factual recitals are based on trial testimony and other evidence that the jury could reasonably have credited in reaching its verdicts. Appellants were named in a thirty one count superseding indictment charging them and ten others.1 The charges stemmed from Appellants' involvement with the Mexican Mafia. Testified that the Mexican Mafia is a prison gang formed in the 1950s by Hispanic street gang members incarcerated at the Deuel Vocational Institution. Benjamin Peters and Victor Murillo were tried together with Appellants. Ambrose Gill's case was severed and he pled guilty following Appellants' trial. 1 12844 UNITED STATES v. As members were released from state custody. The gang had numerous associates who aspired to become members and were willing to commit crimes on the Mexican Mafia's behalf in hopes of attaining membership. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/94-2759.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WESTCOTT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. While reserving his right to appeal the challenged pretrial rulings.<p> The main issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling that. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defendant from admitting the proffered testimony without an insanity defense instruction.<p> FACTS<p> <p> Defendant Westcott was charged with two counts of falsely representing himself to be a United States Secret Service Agent. Intending to use expert psychiatric testimony only to demonstrate that he lacked the necessary <i>mens rea</i> for the specific intent crime with which he was charged. Westcott's accused of representing himself to be a Secret Service Agent back in January 5th and January 6th of this year and attempting to have motel clerks accept his personal check for payment of a motel room. Or does his representation that he was a Secret Service agent. In my opinion it was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI<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> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/94-2759.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WESTCOTT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. While reserving his right to appeal the challenged pretrial rulings.<p> The main issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling that. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defendant from admitting the proffered testimony without an insanity defense instruction.<p> FACTS<p> <p> Defendant Westcott was charged with two counts of falsely representing himself to be a United States Secret Service Agent. Intending to use expert psychiatric testimony only to demonstrate that he lacked the necessary <i>mens rea</i> for the specific intent crime with which he was charged. Westcott's accused of representing himself to be a Secret Service Agent back in January 5th and January 6th of this year and attempting to have motel clerks accept his personal check for payment of a motel room. Or does his representation that he was a Secret Service agent. In my opinion it was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942759.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The main issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling that. FACTS Defendant Westcott was charged with two counts of falsely Honorable William C. Intending to use expert psychiatric testimony only to demonstrate that he lacked the necessary mens rea for the specific intent crime with which he was charged. Westcott's accused of representing himself to be a Secret Service Agent back in January 5th and January 6th of this year and attempting to have motel clerks accept his personal check for payment of a motel room. How does that or does his representation that he was a Secret Service agent. In my opinion it was a this misidentification of himself. Was a product of the altered brain chemistry which is associated with this genetically related metabolic defect. What we have labeled bipolar disorder to manifest itself. Q: Are you saying that Mr. Westcott did not know that he was lying? Are you saying that Mr. In the condition he was at the time of the charged acts. Be able to form or to have what the law refers to as criminal intent in your opinion? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1341.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The business venture was not a success. By January 1998 A & W was sending letters threatening to terminate the license agreement because the Zeidlers had failed to maintain and run their restaurant according to A & W health and sanitation standards and because the Zeidlers had let lapse the liability insurance that the license agreement required them to carry. These were not hollow threats. Ostensibly because A & W's termination threats which the Zeidlers claim were groundless and issued in bad faith made the business impossible to run. The employees were also frying food in shortening that had not been properly filtered after previous use. Finding that A & W was justified in terminating the license agreement based on the Zeidlers' lapsed insurance. Is mounting any kind of challenge to one of the district court's dispositive holdings namely. This holding is dispositive because we have said that a franchisee who abandons his or her franchise by closing it before the end of a license agreement's term may not bring a wrongful termination action against the franchisor who later terminates the agreement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1734p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Indigent inmates are guaranteed care. Their prison accounts are debited for the relevant charges. The following facts are uncontested or were found by the district court. Between 100 and 120 are federal inmates housed under contract with the federal government. The remaining 550 inmates are held under state law. Approximately 35% of the inmate population is Hispanic. Adopted a program under which the inmates held under state law are generally charged small fees when they seek health care. The purpose of the fee program is not to generate revenue but to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1006.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sawyer & Brewster were on brief for appellant. I. Tak How is a Hong Kong corporation with its only place of business in Hong Kong. Its sole asset is the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Harbour View in Hong Kong ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DDC77406016E53388256A2B005CE63B/$file/9817065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm all the substantive decisions of the district court on issues of federal law.1 We hold that under 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)(A) tip income is included within the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B31788BA8A27BBC88256E5A00707ADF/$file/9817065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm all the substantive decisions of the district court on issues of federal law.1 We hold that under 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)(A) tip income is included within the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-8733.man.html">UNITED STATES V. TOKARS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Mason was charged in Counts I. The trial was moved to Birmingham. Tokars was sentenced to concurrent life sentences on Counts I. Tokars was sentenced to 97 months' incarceration on each count to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the life sentences. Mason was sentenced to 200 months' incarceration on each count to be served concurrently. The case is best explained when divided into two sections: the narcotics money laundering enterprise and the murder of Sara Tokars ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/003361P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two of the defendants were served on February 1. Two were served on February 3. Maintaining that the notice was untimely as it was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-8733.man.html">UNITED STATES V. TOKARS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Mason was charged in Counts I. The trial was moved to Birmingham. Tokars was sentenced to concurrent life sentences on Counts I. Tokars was sentenced to 97 months' incarceration on each count to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the life sentences. Mason was sentenced to 200 months' incarceration on each count to be served concurrently. The case is best explained when divided into two sections: the narcotics money laundering enterprise and the murder of Sara Tokars ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/013757p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is an appeal by Peter A. Murphy following a jury trial in which he was convicted on three counts of violating the Travel Act. Murphy is the former Chairman of the Republican Party in Passaic County. Who was involved in the bribery scheme. Margiotta was decided over a strong dissent by Judge Ralph K. That such an inquiry was not based on any legal duties articulated in federal or state law. The Government's Margiotta theory was that Murphy had attained such a dominant role in the political system of Passaic County that he could be considered the equivalent of a publicly elected official. Murphy contends that this court should not endorse the Margiotta rationale because it is an overreaching interpretation of the mail fraud statute. Which was the predicate offense in the Travel Act charges. We are not persuaded by this argument. It was improper for the District Court to allow the jury to create one. We will therefore reverse Murphy's mail fraud 4 conviction and remand for a new trial in which the Margiotta theory of mail fraud will not be submitted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0989n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are natives and citizens of Iraq. The petitioners admitted they had arrived as aliens and were subject to removal but requested the opportunity to file an application for asylum. The applications were consolidated into the lead petitioner's application and a hearing was conducted on April 29. The following facts were established through Yousif's written asylum application and hearing testimony: Yousif was granted refugee status in the United States in 1976 because of fear of the Ba'ath political party then in power in Iraq. Yousif was jailed for over a month in 1991 for allegedly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0795p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants cross appellees are California Smoothie International. We sometimes will refer to CSI and CSLC singularly as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1930.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brenner</U> and <U>Nixon Peabody LLP</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2059.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even though the only possible basis for federal jurisdiction was diversity of citizenship. They have done so. The supplemental briefs reveal that Hoagland is a citizen of Illinois. It is his citizenship rather than Midwest's that is germane to diversity. Because there is no suggestion that he was appointed receiver in order to create diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1359. That while the Sandberg firm is a professional corporation incorporated and having its principal place of business in Missouri. Three of the twenty two members of the firm (the shareholders in the professional corporation) are citizens of Illinois. If the citizenship of the members is what counts for purposes of determining diversity. As would be the case if the law firm were a partnership. A number of subsequent cases are in accord. There are no contrary decisions. Made clear that Coté stands for a rule that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200303/01-1471a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982229.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a suit brought by Russ and Lee Pye. The Pyes own adjoining land to the land on which the road crossing is constructed. Their land also adjoins what is known as Tract M of the Sheppard Tract on which an eighteenth century plantation house connected to the Hayne family is situated and is near to. The cemetery itself adjoins the Pyes' land and is probably partly on the Pyes' land. The old plantation house is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. As is the African American cemetery. We are of opinion such dismissal was error. Which is owned by the County and open to private use only with County permission. A .23 acre segment of the road is covered by waters of the United States. The Pyes' property is adjacent to Area M and contains part of an historic African American cemetery. Both the plantation home site and that of the cemetery have been declared eligible for entry on the National Register of Historic Places. Other adjacent property are all part of a larger area known as Encampment Plantation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-9529.htm">00-9529 -- ST. ANTHONY HOSPITAL V. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE -- 08/28/2002<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/97-3268.htm">97-3268 -- U.S. V. PEARSON -- 02/22/2000<BR></A><BR> (6) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that he committed felony murder as defined by 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54A7C3290D812FA088256C140059D875/$file/0115474.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argues that Bothell is an exempt </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/983578.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The second concerns the District Court's use of the doctrine of laches to prevent McGlory from challenging a forfeiture proceeding in which the notice given for the forfeiture is later discovered to be constitutionally inadequate. 2 In the first appeal. The government directed notice by certified mail to the facility in which McGlory was incarcerated. That the government should have ensured that he received personal notification of the proceedings against his property. Which involved different property of McGlory's that was subject to administrative forfeiture. In whose custody McGlory was held. Due process requires that when a person is in the government's custody and detained at a place of its choosing. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1688p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Inc. is a fast food service company that sells pizza through a national network of over 4200 stores. Inc. is the second largest pizza company in the United States. The essence of a successful nationwide fast food chain is product uniformity and consistency. Uniformity benefits franchisees because customers can purchase pizza from 3 any Domino's store and be certain the pizza will taste exactly like the Domino's pizza with which they are familiar. This means that individual franchisees need not build up their own good will. It ensures the brand name will continue to attract and hold customers. Section 12.2 is subject to a reasonableness clause providing that Domino's Pizza. When Do Franchisors Have Market Power? DPDD was formerly a subsidiary of Domino's Pizza. The plaintiffs in this case are eleven Domino's franchisees and the International Franchise Advisory Council. Even though the dough producing stores were willing to sell dough at a price 25% to 40% below Domino's Pizza. FPC was appointed the purchasing agent for IFAC member Domino's franchisees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2361.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States. Zavala argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that defense counsel's closing argument was improperly hampered by objections from the prosecutor. Was in the port of Cartagena. Who was carrying the cocaine in a bag. Zavala said that he was a friend of Palestino and that Palestino would come to the hotel. Zavala was taken back to room 302 in custody. There were several more calls to the room purportedly from Palestino. In each case Santos told the caller that Zavala was out or otherwise occupied. After a chase they were caught. This final episode was described in testimony at the trial. Neither the driver nor the other man with him was charged. Possibly the police thought that the evidence was not quite strong enough to prove their participation in the drug deal. Was charged 4 4 as previously described. Zavala's primary claim is that an acquittal should have been ordered on grounds of insufficient evidence to prove possession. We begin by noting that on this record Zavala was surely guilty of a closely related offense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-3192.htm">99-3192 -- MARTIN V. STITES -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> We must decide on appeal whether county established towing policies are preempted by federal law. Holding the sheriff's policies are not preempted by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-51116.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Was employed as a deli attendant at the Renaissance Hotel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1593.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/995113.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole question presented by this appeal is whether restaurants are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/97-5313a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Dennis G. With him on the brief were Wilma A. He argues that his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1558.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garin</U> was on brief. Were on brief. A jury convicted Troy Footman of various federal crimes on evidence that he was a pimp. Running a ring of prostitutes who were transported across state lines from Massachusetts to Delaware. Footman was convicted of one count of conspiring to transport women. He was tried alone. Was described as a co conspirator.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0334p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of six counts of extortion and one count of conspiring to commit extortion. Was convicted of one count of extortion and one count of conspiring to commit extortion. Kelley was a long time employee of Wayne County. Was an employee of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Kelley was the Assistant Wayne County CEO. Kelley was responsible for the operation of Wayne County's Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a1005p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question on this appeal is whether the Borough and Enterprise can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Basing the decision on its finding that Enterprise was not a state actor for section 1983 purposes. We conclude that the district court erred in holding that Enterprise is not a state actor. Will affirm the grant of summary judgment. Factual background and procedural history Enterprise is a private association of volunteers which has served the Borough of Hatboro since 1890. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></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-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1387a.html">OVERNITE TRANS CO V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021105.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a case in which we affirm the disbarment of an attorney. The motion charged that these violations occurred while Morrissey was on probation. Finding Those rules have been renumbered and slightly. Or using any false document making a false statement. 1 IN RE: MORRISSEY 3 that Morrissey had been adjudged to have violated the conditions of his probation by violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and condition no. 3 of the terms of his probation which required that he should </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1341.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: page 10. Were on brief. Fifield & Childs was on brief. That order was entered not on the merits. BACKGROUND The facts relevant to the disposition of this appeal are largely undisputed. A two count indictment was returned against defendant appellee Leslie Roberts. Friday's outgoing mail was hand carried to the post office either that day or the next business day (Monday. We have recently held that growing marijuana falls squarely within this proscription. Finding that the government's bevue </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971509.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that he was improperly terminated in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-1216a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Judith A. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Young was on the brief for intervenor Guardsmark. Where an employer promulgates work rules </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0063p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a direct criminal appeal from a perjury conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1623. The parties have agreed to waive oral argument. We agree that oral argument is not needed. In an effort to convince the judge that he was a good candidate for pretrial release. Lee announced that he was refusing to answer any more questions. The Court was engaged in a detention hearing to determine if there were appropriate conditions of release for defendant RYAN E. It was a matter material to said detention hearing to determine whether or not RYAN E. I'm not necessarily there during the weekend because we don't normally have vendors come through. Usually I'm there in the mornings to have vendors come through. Then I go over to GFS which is the Gordon Food Services and pick up supplies and different things like that and drop them off. Bryant also testified that Lee never had an office at Buckeye Chicken and was never given a key to the restaurant. The document giving the 40% was used only a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0150p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant appellant Bharat Patel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012791.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tiller argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to satisfy the mailing element of the statute. That the prosecutor was allowed to make inaccurate statements about this element in closing argument. Freda Tiller was employed as a managed care caseworker by Villanova Rehabilitation Consultants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EA6E4091B444CE1088257111004FAB92/$file/0435592.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That it correctly held that Johnson's claim for payment for the crane services is time barred. I. Background Johnson is a citizen of Alaska. Columbia is a limited partnership organized in Ohio. Are limited liability companies (LLCs). The two LLCs are owned by a Kentucky corporation. By a trust whose sole trustee is a bank incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Minnesota. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov2000/985291.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Consider them in a light most favorable to the appellants.2 The individual appellants are blackjack players who have frequented Atlantic City casinos operated by the casino appellees. All but six have developed card counting skills for playing blackjack enabling them to reduce or eliminate the nor mal odds in 1. We essentially have tracked the district court's compr ehensive opinion. The casinos' use of these countermeasures is at the heart of this case. 2. This case is unusual as the appendix consists of four volumes and thus is of a length which might be expected on an appeal from a summary judgment rather than on appeal from a motion to dismiss. 4 favor of the casinos and. The corporate appellants are associated with appellant Doug Grant. Card Counting and Shuffling At Will and Other Countermeasur es The gravamen of appellants' complaint is that the casinos have taken countermeasures that the appellants regard as illegal to eliminate the advantage that a skilled card counter may have over them in playing blackjack. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/176332F271D968A388256E3D005C91D3/$file/0215742.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Replace footnote 2 at slip op. 12343 with: Prosser and Keeton say that a plaintiff's consent is probably invalid if the defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19967150.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or when the defendant is served with a copy of that pleading. Michetti moved the district court to remand the case to state court on the ground that the notice of removal was untimely. As long as the plaintiff intended it as service.1 Because the question here is purely one of law. Of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based....3 By and large. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-3299.htm">97-3299 -- BATY V. WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES INC. -- 04/07/1999<BR></A><BR> Her hostile work environment and retaliation claims were tried to a jury. Her supervisors were plant manager Dale McGinnis and his brother. Baty was in his office. Baty that there was graffiti on the men's bathroom wall suggesting that Mr. Baty were having a sexual affair. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/995609.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both of whom were limousine drivers for Atlantic. (2) there was a lack of substantial evidence in support of the Board's backpay award. Atlantic contends that Jenkins failed to mitigate his damages because he was unavailable for work during the seven months between his termination and his reinstatement. Because we find both that the Board's reliance on the evidence adduced was 2 proper. That there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings regarding both backpay and mitigation. We will deny the petition for review and enforce the order of the Board. As will ef fectuate the policies of [the Act]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024046p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daffy's is a chain of retail clothing stores specializing in selling popular brands of goods and apparel at discount prices. Inc. was recognized as a reputable supplier. The events leading to the purchase began when a representative of Sara's approached Daffy's regarding some Gucci handbags that were being diverted to the United States from a merchant in the Far East. Although Daffy's representatives were confident that the bags were genuine. A Daffy's employee presented one of the bags to the Gucci clerk and informed the clerk that she had received the bag as a gift 3 and was not certain of its authenticity. The employee asked the clerk to examine the bag and confirm that it was genuine. Informed the Daffy's employee that the bag was authentic. That conclusion was based on certain indicia of authenticity including the quality of fabric and leather. Daffy's also sent one of the bags it had purchased that was damaged to the Gucci repair center in New York for repair. Daffy's concluded that the bags it had purchased from Sara's were genuine Gucci bags. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/99-12723.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. SMITHEN (6/6/2000, NO. 99-12723)<BR></A><BR> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The sole issue we are asked to decide in this case is whether 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a) (1994). The three were to meet with the agents in a motel room in Tampa. They held the agents at gunpoint and robbed them of the cash the agents had brought for the transaction.</P> <P> All three were subsequently arrested and indicted in the Middle District of Florida on three counts: (1) conspiracy to assault with intent to rob. In which he alleged that he could not be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a) because he did not know that his victims were FBI agents or that the money belonged to the United States. After Smithen was sentenced. Shall be imprisoned not more than twenty five years.</P> <P> The parties have not pointed us to a case. Nor have we located one. Which has answered the question presented here: whether the statutory requirement that the property belongs to the United States is an element of the offense or simply a jurisdictional requirement. Have found it simply a jurisdictional requirement.</P> <P> For example. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Rosalinda Pesquera and Mary Jo Mendez were on brief. Bird & Hestres was on brief. Circuit Judge. was discharged from her job at Occidental International after complaining to her employer about being subjected to the sexual demands of a high level executive at Occidental's most important customer. The main issues presented by this appeal are whether the jury's verdict in favor of the customer dictates that the verdict against her employer be reversed. Whether the court's evidentiary and juror peremptory challenge rulings were correct. Whether the court's attorney's fees award was adequate. She was twice promoted. Was put in charge of overseeing the daily operations of her office in February of 1990. While she was never formally evaluated during her employment. Occidental's most important market was Puerto Rico. Its most important customer was the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1349p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand. Distinguishes this case from prior decisions in which we have held a clause reserving the right to terminate or amend unambiguous and controlling. We hold on the facts of this case that the bankruptcy court should have permitted the appellants to present extrinsic evidence in support of their allegations. We will remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the bankruptcy court to conduct the necessary evidentiary hearing. I. Appellants are former executives and highly paid personnel of Western Union Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041015np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 for further proceedings as follows: The District Court should address on remand whether economic loss alone is ever recoverable under the strict liability of New Jersey and. Whether the causal nexus between the defect and the alleged losses here is too attenuated to permit recovery in strict liability here. Where the 2 U.C.C. does not apply and the damage is not to the defective product itself but rather a breach of the duty not to put the defective product into the stream of commerce. The District Court concluded </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/983331.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is both ironic and unfortunate that arbitration. Should have devolved into the bitter impasse before us. For the following reasons we will affirm the District Court's order as herein modified. Abbadini was an operating room technician at Brownsville for twenty seven years. He was a member of Local 471 and served as its president. Saying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/973387P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was that it violated Title III of the ADA. It is undisputed that CW was only a franchisor. Glenn told the manager that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3861.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This diversity suit for breach of a contract of liability insurance was brought by an ERISA pension plan (the May plan. One of which however is an excess insurer whose liability to the plaintiffs need not be discussed separately. Which is called 2 No. 01 3861 an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/01-1491a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10EC24771E0FA76F8825733D004C6A36/$file/0556654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Defendant appellee South Coast Air Quality Management District ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/99-12723.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. SMITHEN (6/6/2000, NO. 99-12723)<BR></A><BR> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The sole issue we are asked to decide in this case is whether 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a) (1994). The three were to meet with the agents in a motel room in Tampa. They held the agents at gunpoint and robbed them of the cash the agents had brought for the transaction.</P> <P> All three were subsequently arrested and indicted in the Middle District of Florida on three counts: (1) conspiracy to assault with intent to rob. In which he alleged that he could not be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a) because he did not know that his victims were FBI agents or that the money belonged to the United States. After Smithen was sentenced. Shall be imprisoned not more than twenty five years.</P> <P> The parties have not pointed us to a case. Nor have we located one. Which has answered the question presented here: whether the statutory requirement that the property belongs to the United States is an element of the offense or simply a jurisdictional requirement. Have found it simply a jurisdictional requirement.</P> <P> For example. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06A0307P-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Caldwell was a warehouse clerk for Meijer at its Tipp City. Are members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1099 (the Union). Caldwell was unsatisfied with his union representation1 and endeavored to replace the current union with a new one. This activity was interrupted when Chris Cullen. Complaining loudly and with vulgarity that the employees were already represented by a labor union. Cullen told Evans that someone was bothering people in the distribution lot. This last stop was impromptu. Therefore Caldwell's truck was not parked in a marked space. Evans asked whether he was on the clock and what he was doing. Caldwell testified that he told Evans that he was soliciting for Real Union. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) credited Evans's conflicting testimony that Caldwell never answered his question concerning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal arises from two related cases that were consolidated in the district court. A driver employed by Wheaton lost control of his truck and hit a motel and restaurant that were owned by Intown and insured by Transcontinental Insurance Company. Although Intown was involved in other litigation against Wheaton in 1997. 217.96 representing lost revenues and loss of reputation and good will that the insurance payment had not covered. Was the real party in interest in the Transcontinental action. The court determined that Transcontinental was not the real party in inter 4 INTOWN PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT v. Intown's only apparent challenge to the summary judgment ruling is its contention that the Intown and Transcontinental actions. Were two parts of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-5463a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Judy Rabinovitz. Perkins was on the brief for amicus curiae The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. Beasley was on the brief for amicus curiae Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children. With her on the briefs were David W. Established a system for expediting the removal of aliens who arrive at the border but are not eligible for admission. Or procedure ... is first implemented. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/opinions%20by%20date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=5.4#5.4">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-13347.OP2.html">UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)<BR></A><BR> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1584.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mariani Franco was on brief. Kuinlam & Bermudez were on brief. P.S.C. were on brief. McConnell Valdes were on brief. This case is another in a LYNCH. Plaintiffs in these cases usually have been members of the PDP who complain that the incoming NPP administration has deprived them of their government jobs in violation of their rights under the First Amendment.1 In this case. Claims his job at a government contractor was eliminated as part of an internal party feud. Vazquez argues that the district court committed error in excluding evidence as hearsay when the statements were admissions by party opponents. 1997) (citing cases). 3 3 We agree with Vazquez that some of the conversations which the district court excluded on hearsay grounds are admissions of a party opponent and should have been considered as part of his case. To win the battle is not necessarily to win the war. Because the evidence Vazquez presents is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact in any event. Waldo Vazquez was employed for many years by Puerto Rico Maritime Management. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1829.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Homan</U> were on brief. <STRONG> </STRONG>were on brief for appellees.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043034p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alito heard oral argument in this case but was elevated to the United States Supreme Court on January 31. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Engelhard's Peekskill employees were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031193.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was entitled to assume a nonexclusive license of copyrighted software.2 On appeal. We are called upon to decide whether. Because we are unable to so construe § 365(c). Sunterra was precluded from assuming the nonexclusive software license. RCI Technology Corporation was formerly known as Resort Computer Corporation. 1107). 1 IN RE: SUNTERRA CORPORATION 3 RCI's software products were used by entities in this industry. Because tens of thousands of timeshare owners and units were involved in the Club. RCI was required to provide Sunterra a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTQ5MjRfc28ucGRm/04-4924_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-13347.OP2.html">UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)<BR></A><BR> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013447.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013347.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031280.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was duly removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Interrogatories and affidavits . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FA9F25497E4077078825709200005190/$file/0555995.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery. Circuit Judge: The question before us is when is a class action suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B181A3BD78A945088256E5A00707D47/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2228.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP were on brief. Gaztambide & Plaza were on brief. Francisco Silva were on brief. The agreement in turn was approved by the Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053380p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that his conviction is flawed by numerous alleged errors in his trial and that the district court erred in finding that the prosecution had properly filed and served upon Rivas an information charging the prior drug conviction on the basis of which the government sought to enhance Rivas's sentence. Who had pleaded guilty and were cooperating with the government. Which were also videotaped. Both Rivas and Culler were there. He could not see what was going on inside the car. The transaction was videotaped. Culler and Johnson were all heavily impeached by their prior crimes and by lies they told about the details of those crimes while on the stand in the present case. The court instructed the jury that the guilty pleas of the coconspirators were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011834.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: The principal question in this appeal is whether South Carolina's highest court would hold a professional appraiser liable to a third party for negligent misrepresentation. In the event the third party detrimentally relied upon the professional appraiser's materially inaccurate and negligent appraisal of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053380pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that his conviction is flawed by numerous alleged errors in his trial and that the district court erred in finding that the prosecution had properly filed and served upon Rivas an information charging the prior drug conviction on the basis of which the government sought to enhance Rivas's sentence. Who had pleaded guilty and were cooperating with the government. Which were also videotaped. Both Rivas and Culler were there. He could not see what was going on inside the car. The transaction was videotaped. Culler and Johnson were all heavily impeached by their prior crimes and by lies they told about the details of those crimes while on the stand in the present case. The court instructed the jury that the guilty pleas of the coconspirators were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0032p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Forest was convicted of possessing with the intent to distribute both powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Forest was sentenced to 188 months in prison followed by 8 years of supervised release. Garner was sentenced to 120 months in prison followed by 8 years of supervised release. Forest and Garner both contend that the government violated their statutory and constitutional rights by intercepting cellular phone data that revealed their general location while they were traveling on public highways. A more detailed factual discussion is therefore included under each heading in Part II below. Forest and Garner were part of a large drug trafficking operation in the area of Youngstown/Warren. Forest and Garner were found guilty on the various counts of conspiracy. Demonstrated that Forest and Garner were jointly involved in drug trafficking. Wire communications intercepted by the DEA between May 8 and May 30 of 2001 indicated that Forest and Garner were expecting the imminent arrival of a large shipment of cocaine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/004348.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a judgment of civil forfeiture for funds from a bank account owned by Kim's Wholesale Distributors. The complaint claimed that the funds were subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. Proof supporting the forfeiture was obtained from business records seized from Kim's pursuant to a warrant issued by a United States Magistrate Judge in connection with a wide scale investigation of illegal trafficking in food stamps. Final judgment was entered against Kim's in the amount of $92. Chinese take out restaurants were buying food stamps from low income food stamp recipients for seventy cents on the dollar. It was alleged that the restaurants were then reselling the food stamps to a partnership (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0168FFB46E51AC548825718F00493302/$file/0356621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both these ordinances and Santa Monica's administrative interpretation of them have changed substantially. Appellants' persistent urging and Santa Monica's willingness to change its regulations have together produced a transformation in the applicable permitting scheme that to the credit of all par SANTA MONICA FOOD v. We hold that Santa Monica's Community Events Ordinance is. Is not constitutionally sound and cannot be enforced. The facial challenges to other ordinances either are moot or fail on the merits. We are not to be understood as having reviewed or approved aspects of the ordinances or implementing regulations not here challenged. We have endeavored throughout to be quite specific about the limited nature of the challenges to which we respond. 2 Santa Monica has requested that we take judicial notice of six documents: Staff Report. Santa Monica submits that each document is a certified public record. The first four documents are on file with the City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica. The remainder can be accessed at Santa Monica's official website found at www.santa monica.org/ccs/events and are on file with the Open Space Management Division of the Community and Cultural Services Department of the City of Santa Monica. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984945.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This copyright infringement action was brought against PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3303_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ingram were already known to law enforcement when a confidential informant. The meeting was recorded by video and audio. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0057p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No evidence was presented that there was a corresponding increase in Owner hours. The fee allocated to it was higher than 1990. There is no claim that K K required special attention in 1992. Its fee was higher in 1992 than in 1991. Perrysburg was charged $29. The third issue we address is whether Petitioners are liable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-9250.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ-PEREZ (2/2/1999, NO. 96-9250)<BR></A><BR> Homero provided the agent with one half ounce of methamphetamine but was unable to deliver the marijuana. Maclavio was sitting in the passenger seat of the Escort. Homero walked over to the Escort and was handed a shoe box wrapped with duct tape through the driver's side window. As well as an employment authorization card issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984945.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * This copyright infringement action was brought against PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964831.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Donald Wardrick and Porteal Groom were convicted in the District of Maryland for conspiracy to distribute heroin. I. Wardrick and Groom were part of an international heroin smuggling enterprise which used young Americans as couriers to transport the drug from Pakistan into the Washington. Who said that they were interested. Sirianni and Heitzenrater were instructed to fly to the Pakistani border town of Lahore by way of Karachi and Islamabad. They were to stay at a hotel in Lahore called Falletti's. They were told to wait at Falletti's until they were contacted by a man named Mateen. Mojica told them that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-9250.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ-PEREZ (2/2/1999, NO. 96-9250)<BR></A><BR> Homero provided the agent with one half ounce of methamphetamine but was unable to deliver the marijuana. Maclavio was sitting in the passenger seat of the Escort. Homero walked over to the Escort and was handed a shoe box wrapped with duct tape through the driver's side window. As well as an employment authorization card issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982025.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. It was nearly 6:30 p.m. The only snow observed by Bass was plowed up against a fence at the perimeter of the lot. Which was dark. Testified that the asphalt in the Roy Rogers parking lot had deteriorated and there was a long. When combined with the facts that (1) there was snow piled at the edges of the parking lot. (2) there was runoff from the roof. He testified that Hardee's should have done one of the following: (1) slope the lot more safely and channel the roof runoff underground. Particularly to areas where ice formation was most probable. The district court ruled as a matter of law that Bass was an invitee of Hardee's at the time of the fall. Determining that there was no evidence that could support a reasonable inference that Bass was contributorily negligent. Who had been the manager of the Roy Rogers at the time of the accident but was no longer employed by Hardee's at the time of the trial. The sequestration of witnesses is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 615. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5CD1579334F0DD5288256F63007B385B/$file/0257200.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: The fundamental question in this appeal from a district court order of remand is whether we have appellate jurisdiction in light of the limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We hold that we have jurisdiction to review the district court's ruling on substantive issues of controlling law on the merits of the case. Hold that the claims against the U.S. government agencies should have been dismissed rather than remanded to state court. BACKGROUND The underlying consolidated actions are suits arising from the energy crisis of 2000 2001. Both BPA and WAPA are agencies of the United States Government statutorily authorized to promote the development. BC Hydro is a crown corporation of the Canadian province of British Columbia created by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act of 1964. PowerEx is a wholly owned subsidiary of BC Hydro. Arguing that they were entitled to be dismissed from the action because they enjoyed sovereign immunity as agencies of the U.S. government. BC Hydro argued for dismissal on the ground that it was an immune foreign sovereign as defined by the FSIA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/51BFE3F68EDF896E88256B0300792F66/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984049.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 2 the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/98-4080.man.html">SULLIVAN V. NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. (3/25/1999, NO. 98-4080)<BR></A><BR> Amtrak argues that the district court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law or. Claiming that he was the victim of sexual harassment and retaliation stemming from an incident in December 1993 when Sullivan's immediate supervisor. Sullivan claims that the incident occurred while the two were traveling on business and staying at a hotel in Tampa. Scott further assured him that he would have nothing to worry about for as long as the two continued to work together. Which were cashed at a grocery store near his home. Sullivan's work schedule was changed from four to five days a week. Amtrak claims that this change was necessary to satisfy a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation that all inbound trains be inspected and cleaned upon arrival. 2) there was no evidence of retaliation. Amtrak additionally claims that the damage amounts awarded by both the jury and the magistrate judge were not supported by the evidence.</P> <P>Discussion</P> <P> We first address Amtrak's claim that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/98-4080.man.html">SULLIVAN V. NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. (3/25/1999, NO. 98-4080)<BR></A><BR> Amtrak argues that the district court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law or. Claiming that he was the victim of sexual harassment and retaliation stemming from an incident in December 1993 when Sullivan's immediate supervisor. Sullivan claims that the incident occurred while the two were traveling on business and staying at a hotel in Tampa. Scott further assured him that he would have nothing to worry about for as long as the two continued to work together. Which were cashed at a grocery store near his home. Sullivan's work schedule was changed from four to five days a week. Amtrak claims that this change was necessary to satisfy a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation that all inbound trains be inspected and cleaned upon arrival. 2) there was no evidence of retaliation. Amtrak additionally claims that the damage amounts awarded by both the jury and the magistrate judge were not supported by the evidence.</P> <P>Discussion</P> <P> We first address Amtrak's claim that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/98-1453.htm">98-1453 -- CORDER V. DENVER, CITY AND COUNTY -- 08/31/2000<BR></A><BR> FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY <p> The following statement of facts is set forth in the light most favorable to Corder. Corder is six feet. Although the events immediately preceding and following Corder's exit from the restaurant are not clear. Arrived at the scene and Corder was placed under arrest. Corder was loud. Verbally threatening. <p> After Corder was arrested. A sheriff's transport van was called to transport him to the jail. After the van doors were closed. Who was still in handcuffs. The four Denver police officers were behind and to the sides of Corder. While the two Deputy Sheriffs were restraining him by the arms or wrists. Yelling that he was burning and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EC1D284F300DB9FE88256A80007C5F38/$file/9917240.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse the BAP and hold that the settlement agreement is valid and enforceable. This postpetition financing was approved by the bankruptcy court on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D079531C495BC5E288256EF90055E54C/$file/0117424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the case was not ripe. That the District Court should have abstained from hearing the case. We hold that there was no personal jurisdiction over Appellants and reverse the District Court. BACKGROUND Yahoo! is an Internet service provider which has its principal place of business in Santa Clara. Nazi discussions have occurred in Yahoo!'s chat rooms and Nazi related paraphernalia have appeared for sale on its auction website. Demanding that Yahoo! prohibit the display of the Nazi materials because the practice was illegal in France. The court found jurisdiction was proper under Section 46 of France's New Code of Civil Procedure. Which are accessible in France. The imposition of penalties is provisional in YAHOO! Are still available through www.yahoo.com. Modified its hate speech policy to preclude use of its services to promote groups that are known for taking violent positions against others because of race or similar factors. Yahoo! filed a complaint in the Northern District of California requesting a declaration that the French court's orders of May 22 and November 20 were not recognizable or enforceable in the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/405417A529E3E06088256E5A00707BD2/$file/9917240.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse the BAP and hold that the settlement agreement is valid and enforceable. This postpetition financing was approved by the bankruptcy court on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F408CD84BE2757C8825727D00020D42/$file/0374431.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 natives and Don is the principal or lead petitioner. His wife's and child's petitions are derivative of his petition. They conceded that they are removable. Because a cook employed at the restaurant owned by Don was arrested by the TDB as a suspected LTTE terrorist. He and his family were not threatened or harmed by the government or any terrorist groups. He did not support nor was he active in any political group. He did not know that the cook was a Tamil Tiger until his arrest. Don stated that subsequently his life was threatened by the LTTE once in person outside of Colombo. Neither he nor his family was physically harmed.3 Don agreed to try to get the cook released. Contacted several of his friends at the police station where the cook was imprisoned. He would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/088BB88B1148119288256E5A00707CF9/$file/9916468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is owned and operated by the appellees. Which was disposed of by the magistrate judge through summary judgment. Argue that their Nevada state law damages claim should have survived summary judgment. The Orleans cross appeals the one instance of noncompliance found by the magistrate judge and argues that appellants' appeal is not timely. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This suit was brought under the ADA's enforcement provision. (2) two of the four slot change kiosks3 in the 1 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contains a citizen suit provision at 42 U.S.C. § 2000a 3(a): Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 2000a 2 of this title. May be instituted by the person aggrieved . . . . 2 The Guidelines are created by the United States Department of Justice ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0396C407D8D2893B88256C4E005828BF/$file/0057099.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that the District Court (1) erred by finding that actual damages were not released by the consent decree. (4) erred by determining that the consent decree was fair. We determine that the certification of a mandatory class was violative of the class member's due process rights and that the consent decree was inadequate and fundamentally unfair. 200 gas stations and mini markets in the State of California.1 Each is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/953174P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are owned by Thomas Anderson. per week. The district court found that the primary duties of the managers was management of the motel. clerks. The managers also served as the motels' liaisons to the guests. was the managers' responsibility to receive and solve guest concerns. as to the proper presentation and appearance of those areas. decisions were based on numerous It The These and maintenance workers. Making decisions Waiting time is that period of time beyond the scheduled working hours during which the managers. Were on the motel premises and were on call to tend to motel business as circumstances required. 2 2 factors. Because these motels are small. The managers were authorized to grant room rate discounts within time spent doing laundry. Checking in guests was proportional to the volume of business more when business was good and less when it was slow. One of the managers' conditions of employment was that they live on the premises. The managers generally spent much of the time beyond the standard working hours There were interruptions during this waiting time business phone calls. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0256p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As we agree with the district court that plaintiffs have not presented a sustainable theory of relief. Sought a composer to write the musical score for the nineteenth Bond film </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0437p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The general question presented by the relatively bizarre factual background of this case is whether or not a core function of municipal government the provision of firefighting services impacts interstate commerce such that an individual can be indicted under a federal anti arson statute for destroying a fire station. Is whether the Henning. Tennessee Fire Station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce such that the person charged with setting it ablaze can be indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). We hold that this particular fire station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce and accordingly REVERSE the judgment of the district court dismissing the indictment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE Prometheus may have thought twice before handing down the gift of fire to humans had he imagined that those whom the mere mortals chose to steward the precious flame would use it to decimate the very mechanisms employed to control 1 No. 02 5185 United States v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0002p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This criminal prosecution pertains to one of six defendants who were tried on charges of conspiracy to conduct and participate in a Detroit based racketeer influenced and corrupt organization.1 Appellant Jack W. Tocco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984080.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Amtrak argues that the district court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law or. Claiming that he was the victim of sexual harassment and retaliation stemming from an incident in December 1993 when Sullivan's immediate supervisor. Sullivan claims that the incident occurred while the two were traveling on business and staying at a hotel in Tampa. Scott further assured him that he would have nothing to worry about for as long as the two continued to work together. Which were cashed at a grocery store near his home. Sullivan's work schedule was changed from four to five days a week. Amtrak claims that this change was necessary to satisfy a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation that all inbound trains be inspected and cleaned upon arrival. 2) there was no evidence of retaliation. Amtrak additionally claims that the damage amounts awarded by both the jury and the magistrate judge were not supported by the evidence. The jury could not find against Sullivan on his sexual harassment claim while finding for him on the retaliation claim.1 Amtrak argues that Sullivan's harassment claim is based on a single incident which Amtrak maintains never occurred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984080.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Amtrak argues that the district court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law or. Claiming that he was the victim of sexual harassment and retaliation stemming from an incident in December 1993 when Sullivan's immediate supervisor. Sullivan claims that the incident occurred while the two were traveling on business and staying at a hotel in Tampa. Scott further assured him that he would have nothing to worry about for as long as the two continued to work together. Which were cashed at a grocery store near his home. Sullivan's work schedule was changed from four to five days a week. Amtrak claims that this change was necessary to satisfy a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation that all inbound trains be inspected and cleaned upon arrival. 2) there was no evidence of retaliation. Amtrak additionally claims that the damage amounts awarded by both the jury and the magistrate judge were not supported by the evidence. The jury could not find against Sullivan on his sexual harassment claim while finding for him on the retaliation claim.1 Amtrak argues that Sullivan's harassment claim is based on a single incident which Amtrak maintains never occurred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948485.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 were convicted pursuant to a 133 count indictment charging them with various offenses arising out of the operation of the concessions at the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Ira Jackson was the first black person elected to the Atlanta City Council and served from 1970 to 1990. Will be referred to herein as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2213.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 10. Were on brief for appellant. Is a corporation conducting a restaurant business in Hato Rey. Its president is Jorge Carcavallo. Who is responsible for enforcing the FLSA. Conducted an investigation of Tango's and concluded that Tango's was keeping inaccurate records and failing to pay minimum wages and required overtime compensation. Only two episodes are pertinent to this appeal. The facts set forth below are limited to those episodes. A six day trial was held before the district judge. The district court ruled that 15 of the waiters (together with seven other former or present employees) were entitled to $51. Under the Act the minimum wage in force at the time of their employment was $3.35 per hour (FLSA 6(a)(1). That the defendants were entitled to treat a portion of the tips received by the waiters as a credit against the defendants' minimum wage and overtime compensation obligations. Santiago was also carried on Tango's books as working a 40 hour week at $2.95 per hour. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/141D34660EA69F9788256ADA005A0778/$file/9916468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is owned and operated by the appellees. Which was disposed of by the magistrate judge through summary judgment. Argue that their Nevada state law damages claim should have survived summary judgment. The Orleans cross appeals the one instance of noncompliance found by the magistrate judge and argues that appellants' appeal is not timely. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This suit was brought under the ADA's enforcement provision. (2) two of the four slot change kiosks3 in the 1 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contains a citizen suit provision at 42 U.S.C. § 2000a 3(a): Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 2000a 2 of this title. May be instituted by the person aggrieved . . . . 2 The Guidelines are created by the United States Department of Justice ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051077np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will remand the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. The motion for a stay of removal was granted. The motion for a stay of the voluntary departure period was referred to the merits panel. We conclude that this court does not have jurisdiction to extend or reinstate or stay the voluntary departure period. Again Chinese people and businesses were attacked. Who represent approximately 3 percent of the population by far the largest nonindigenous minority group historically have played a major role in the economy. The Megawati government has failed to pursue the 1999 recommendations of the joint fact finding team (TGPF) that was commissioned to investigate the 1998 attacks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410351.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The main issue presented in this petition is whether evidence. Silva applied for asylum and alleged that she was persecuted in Colombia by the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC). Because Silva's testimony at her asylum hearing failed to establish that the threats she received were more than mere harassment and she failed to establish that the shooting incident was based on her political opinion. I. BACKGROUND Silva was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor on March 8. Was authorized to remain in the United States until March 12. Just before she was scheduled to depart. She was persecuted in Colombia by the FARC. She 2 received a written death threat that was signed by the FARC. Two men shot at her car while she was driving and hit the rear window. The application also stated that the FARC continued calling Silva daily until she left the country and that on the last call she was told that she was missed on October 9 but would not be missed again. Relevant portions of Silva's asylum application are attached as Appendix A to the dissenting opinion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/98-5515.man.html">UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. W&O, INC. (5/30/2000, NO. 98-5515)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985515.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * Before this court are two consolidated appeals arising from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case brought by Plaintiff Appellee United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/003721P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Attorney General John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor Janet Reno. Ziglar is substituted for his predecessor Doris Meissner. He was given an individual merits hearing before an immigration judge in June 1994. That Hernandez was statutorily ineligible for asylum. I. Hernandez was born in Quezaltenango. Insofar as this case is concerned. At that time Hernandez had never heard of ORPA and did not know that it was a guerrilla group which used violent means in pursuit of its goals. They said that the group was dedicated to improving the lives of Guatemalans by undertaking non violent activities and protesting 2 government injustices. Although Hernandez was generally sympathetic with the stated goals. He was reluctant to join the organization. The two men came to a restaurant where Hernandez was eating. The three newcomers were then oriented to the group and given weapons training. They told him that the training was necessary and that ORPA had to take extreme measures in order to obtain its goals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/98-5515.man.html">UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. W&O, INC. (5/30/2000, NO. 98-5515)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3370.htm">96-3370 -- U.S. V. BISHOP -- 07/09/1998<BR></A><BR> Financial transactions involving funds that are the proceeds of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53333A1C2A376D138825723B005F9EE5/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was denied entry. The Kamehameha Schools were created through a charitable testamentary trust. Plaintiff argues that he was denied admission because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Factual Background Historical Context2 The islands of Hawaii are geographically isolated in the South Pacific Ocean and were originally settled sometime between 1 and 750 A.D. The immediate result of that first encounter was that Native Hawaiians were introduced to Western goods and Western diseases. The first treaty was signed in 1826. Additional treaties were signed in 1849. Was commercially desirable. Western economic domination of the Hawaiian Islands was followed by an interest in establishing political control. Was overthrown by a small group of nonHawaiians. Who were assisted in their efforts by the United States Minister. Laws were then enacted suppressing the Hawaiian culture and language and allowing for the displacement of Native Hawaiians from their lands. The Hawaiian language was banned as a medium of instruction in schools. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985515.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Before this court are two consolidated appeals arising from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case brought by Plaintiff Appellee United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1055.html">YOUNG V. AGB CORP.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTE3NThfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-1758_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Morgan argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain her conviction and that the district court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury not to consider. Morgan argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that she knowingly and intentionally committed the offense. To Hester's boyfriend was improperly admitted hearsay with respect to the case against Morgan and that the district court therefore committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury not to consider it with respect to the charges against her. Because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for conviction and that The government has withdrawn its appeal. Continues to be listed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3156_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Company is nonunion and explains its approach to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2FA43604F5CB31A8825723A005ACAC0/$file/0315955.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Judge CLIFTON joins as to Part II A and II B: The question before us is whether a provision to submit to arbitration in a written franchise agreement is valid and enforceable. A three judge panel of our court held that the unconscionability of an arbitration provision contained in the franchise agreement is a question for the arbitrator to decide. It was error to hold that consideration of the unconscionability of the arbitration provision was to be determined by the arbitrator. Is unconscionable must be referred to the arbitrator. When the crux of the complaint is not the invalidity of the contract as a whole. Then the federal courts must decide whether the arbitration provision is invalid and unenforceable under 9 U.S.C. § 2 of the FAA.1 The federal courts cannot shirk their statutory obligation to do so simply because controlling substantive state law requires the court to consider. No cause of action in the complaint alleges that the franchise agreement is invalid because it is a contract of adhesion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1370.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. That the jury's general verdict of guilty on the firearm charge is ambiguous and must be set aside. As it was returned on a single charge containing three alleged violations. Two of which were not supported by the evidence at trial. Nieves Burgos asserts that the only alleged violation supported by evidence at trial was itself not supported by sufficient evidence. We conclude that the jury verdict is not ambiguous and is adequately supported by the evidence. BACKGROUND The factual background of this appeal is set forth in United States v. Which for the most part are not disputed. As is appropriate. The rooms often were paid for together. Which was bulging from something concealed underneath. Was met by Nieves Burgos and Pedro Luis Ram rez Rivera (Ram rez Rivera). Nieves Burgos was on one of the room's two beds. The gun was found with a bundle of cash in a zippered bag on a sofa on which Gotay Col n was seated. The bag was located less than two feet from Nieves Burgos. Rooms 310 and 327 were also searched. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-17249.opn.html">BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER (2/13/2003, NO. 01-17249<BR></A><BR> Petitioners Appellants have been assessed tax deficiencies (including penalties against Ballard) totaling $1. (2) that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support the Tax Court's findings. We find that the application of Rule 183 did not violate Petitioners Appellants' due process rights and that the evidence is sufficient to support the Tax Court's finding that Ballard received and fraudulently failed to report income.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/01-17249.opn.html">BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER (2/13/2003, NO. 01-17249<BR></A><BR> Petitioners Appellants have been assessed tax deficiencies (including penalties against Ballard) totaling $1. (2) that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support the Tax Court's findings. We find that the application of Rule 183 did not violate Petitioners Appellants' due process rights and that the evidence is sufficient to support the Tax Court's finding that Ballard received and fraudulently failed to report income.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/952660P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The controlling substantive law is that of Minnesota. After she was terminated from her position as director of sales at the Mall of America Days Inn in Bloomington. Found that Fox was entitled to prevail on her promissory estoppel claim. Claiming that the District Court erred in denying its motion for We agree with T H and now reverse. that Fox failed to make a submissible case on her promissory estoppel claim and therefore that T H's motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted. She was promoted several times and. Was general manager of a hotel In February 1992. After Tollman Hundley sold the hotel where Fox was employed. She was told that her job soon would be During the next two weeks. Fox was involved in tying up loose Wilson asked Fox to join T H as Under the ends in the hotel transfer when she was contacted by Tom Wilson. Because the position was only temporary. Fox was told that permanent employment was conditioned on her satisfactory performance in the temporary position and a successful interview with the new general manager who had not yet been hired. 15. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7143a.html">WA SVC CONTRS COALTN V. DC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/053910P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The original complaint was filed in April 2003 by Gregory and the Turners. It was amended one year later to add the other plaintiffs. The thirteen African American appellants are predominantly residents of Columbia or nearby communities. The complaint alleges further that the plaintiffs </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/01-2112.htm">01-2112 -- GLASS V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 11/05/2001<BR></A><BR> Hold the suit should have been dismissed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8066.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the erroneous enhancement of his sentence was unreasonable in light of Booker v. Appellant was arrested at the Days Inn in Casper. Appellant was found in possession of 13.05 grams of methamphetamine. Was present in the motel room. As they were leaving Appellant's room. Appellant was charged in state court with felony possession of cocaine and methamphetamine and possession with intent to <hr> distribute both substances. Appellant was released. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He fled on foot but was captured after a brief pursuit.(1) The agents then returned to the motel. Where they detained Harold Virden and Mary Virden as the two were leaving the same motel room and heading toward a vehicle registered to Rick Johnson. In whose name the motel room also was registered. Virden's handbag that appeared to have and was later confirmed to have methamphetamine residue on it. (1) Mr. Goodsell was later located with the help of coconspirator Rick Johnson and was apprehended. <hr> After securing a search warrant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-7097a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard J. With him on the brief were Robert F. The issues presented are whether the District Court may assert personal jurisdiction over the defendants and whether venue is proper in the District of Columbia ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1144p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Amana is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2349.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ubarri</U> was on brief. Were on brief. Only about half a million dollars was recovered. The weapons used were never recovered. Four of the five defendants involved in this appeal were convicted of the robbery and received sentences ranging from 308 months to 355 months. The fifth defendant was convicted of helping in the aftermath and was sentenced to 150 months imprisonment.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055254np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Honeysuckle is a Missouri corporation owned by Richardson. Who was the guarantor on Honeysuckle's agreement with Travelodge. Is listed as a codefendant. Though they are distinct parties. Their arguments and claims are identical. Are intended to include both Honeysuckle and Richardson. 2 1 Travelodge salesman. Richardson indicated he was not interested in a franchise. Regardless of whether they were produced by Travelodge's system. Was shown a document purportedly showing that in 1999. Travelodge was unable to fulfill more than 13. 400 completed reservations at Honeysuckle would have been enough to increase profits by fifteen percent. Richardson said he was convinced to enter a franchise deal with Travelodge after reviewing the document. A license agreement was signed in January 2001. These were: (1) an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/023012P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are depreciable over thirty years. It argued that its truckstops qualified for such depreciation because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7FA4E8DA707E57788256EEB00781702/$file/0216604.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Must prove individualized reliance where that proof is otherwise necessary to establish actual or proximate causation. Their challenges are based on Burford abstention. None of which is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200112498.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the evidence was insufficient to show Elliassaint knew that the conspiracy involved drugs. Richard indicated he was associated with a group of individuals who executed such thefts. Dorelus arranged to meet with Richard and told him that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2116448BD2D2F58B88256E9E00591E71/$file/0272249.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Guam Supreme Court concluded that this factual finding was clearly erroneous and reversed the award. This judgment was affirmed by the Guam Supreme Court. Haeuser contends that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that he mitigated damages and that the Guam Supreme Court erred in reversing the trial court's previous award to him. The Department argues that Haeuser can contest only the Supreme Court's subsequent decision to affirm the Superior Court's actions on remand and is barred from challenging the Supreme Court's earlier decision because Haeuser did not seek review by this court at that time. We may reverse the Supreme Court only if it commits manifest error or is inescapably wrong. Because we hold that the Guam Supreme Court committed manifest error in this case in reversing the Guam Superior Court's findings of fact without completing a review of the evidence upon which those finding were based. I. BACKGROUND This is the second visit by this case to our court. Assistant attorneys general were placed in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-2067.htm">01-2067 -- U.S. V. LOPEZ -- 11/04/2002<BR></A><BR> Lopez was charged in three counts of a second superseding indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. Defendant was convicted on all three counts and was sentenced to 168 months' imprisonment followed by supervised release of five years on Count 2. Which transaction was also not within jointly undertaken activity and reasonably foreseeable to Defendant or within the intent or capability of the co conspirators. Is not merely a sentencing error but a trial error of constitutional dimension which is subject to harmless error analysis under <em>Chapman v. The error was not harmless. Because there was no evidence from which the jury could find that the coconspirators possessed with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine in excess of five kilograms. Defendant may well have been acquitted. A person who commits the offense of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine is subject to the penalties for possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/013700P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 DaimlerChrysler is the registered owner of the trademarks and service marks MERCEDES and MERCEDES BENZ (collectively. MercedesBenz USA is the exclusive licensee of the Marks in the United States. One possible alphanumeric translation of which is 1 800 MERCEDES. He believes that the use of the phone number was a key component in reviving what had otherwise been a moribund dealership. Mercedes was forced The Mercedes Benz Communications Monitoring Service. MBZ is located in Owatonna and is an independent telecommunications company that specializes in the use of vanity phone numbers. Any call made to 1 800 MERCEDES originating in a contracted for area code is automatically rerouted to the appropriate dealership. Any call originating from an area code not covered by a licensing agreement terminates at the MBZ office and is processed by MBZ personnel. The following description is a concrete example of how MBZ's licensing system works. Any call made to 1 800 MERCEDES from the aforementioned area codes is automatically routed to House. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F54C18E855D23FB688256E92006DF6C7/$file/0273700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ASHCROFT is a victim of China's coercive population control program. Ge also asserts that he is entitled to withholding of removal. He was detained. Ge argues that the credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We reverse the IJ's adverse credibility determination and hold that Ge is a refugee eligible for asylum by statute. Whether he is entitled to withholding of removal. I Ge is a 43 year old native and citizen of China. Ge is married and has one son. Who is now sixteen years old. Ge's wife was GE v. Local authorities forced his wife to have an abortion. His wife was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/95-7225a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Long was on brief. Heald was on brief for appellee Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants in a civil action arising from an automobile accident in which Tommy was seriously injured. Who were out of town at the time. The Jetta was registered to Fran cisco Rivas and to the restaurant he owns. As Jorge was driving away. Thornburg noticed that Tommy's school books were still in the car. Who was with a group of people in the Rupp driveway. The plaintiffs opposed the motion on the ground that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FB113670C2ECEC188256CD90080CAFB/$file/0216214.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are called on to decide whether a voluntarily joined foreign sovereign may remove a case from a territorial court to a federal district court when the foreign sovereign obtained the original defendant's interest by assignment after the commencement of the litigation. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY EIE Guam Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1575.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lucas is an African American male who has been employed with the CTA since 1993. Lucas was hired as a track inspector. Maintaining and repairing sections of track and surrounding right of ways to ensure the tracks were safe for CTA trains. The Tie Handler machine is used to stack railroad ties prior to their insertion or after their extraction. He only was permitted to operate that machine three times. He was often assigned to work on the Tie Handler machine. This request also was to no avail. 1 Because this is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment. Lucas checked the box that indicated that he was alleging race discrimination by his supervisor. Lucas details the days he was permitted to work on the machine and his efforts in securing more work for himself on the machine he preferred. This request was denied. A position in which he was no longer supervised by Blatz. Lucas asserts that he was aware of the finding of cause but not aware either that the finding was discredited upon review or that the managers were not disciplined in any way. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/02-3015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appointed 3 by the court for Samuel Carson at the time the brief was filed. Were on the joint brief. Assistant United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. I. Facts This case is a story of mayhem and disorder in and around the 200 block of K Street. Underlying the violence was appellants' organized and massive business of selling drugs. Some appellants also were convicted for numerous attempted murders. All appellants were convicted for a racketeering conspiracy. Appellant William Sweeney was incarcerated when some of these purchases took place. Crucial to the government's case was testimony from former associates of appellants and nearby residents testimony that was undoubtedly difficult to obtain given evidence. That some of the appellants have a history of murdering or attempting to murder potential witnesses against them. Not every detail is known about appellants' lengthy pattern of lawlessness that preceded their indictment in 1998. Our summary is by no means 5 exhaustive of all facts underlying that activity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE07E4E01DB1935C8825729D007EC8C4/$file/0615886.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the district court is asked to order outright disclosure. The burden of proof on the party seeking to vitiate the privilege is preponderance of the evidence. We conclude the appellees in this case have failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing to support a finding that the crime fraud exception applies. Leiber et al. and Capitol Records et al. (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954769.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior District Judge: Appellants Alice Sepulveda and Placido Mendez were convicted of possessing and conspiring to possess. Appellants contend that they are entitled to acquittal because the unprogrammed combinations are not additional access devices that can be added to the fourteen cloned telephones to establish the fifteen or more access devices required for conviction. It was established at trial. 1994 and that each time there were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-3329.htm">02-3329 -- TANDY V. CITY OF WICHITA -- 08/25/2004<BR></A><BR> Almost all of the Appellants were testing Wichita Transit's compliance with the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA and did not reside in the Wichita area. Appellants alleged that Wichita Transit's fixed route bus system was intentionally inaccessible to and unusable by people with disabilities.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-5059.htm">98-5059 -- NICHOLS V. APFEL -- 03/15/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Randall L. We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-8485.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. PARADIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0299p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The background of this case is thoroughly discussed in the findings of fact of the district court. CFE's basic complaint is that MHSAA discriminates against female high school athletes by scheduling girls' sports to play in disadvantageous. Our task is now to reevaluate this claim in light of the Supreme Court's GVR. CFE responds by contending that Rancho Palos Verdes does not apply to the present case and that CFE is therefore entitled to prevail under both Title IX and § 1983. Standard of review Constitutional and statutory interpretation questions are issues of law. Or recent developments that we have reason to believe the court below did not fully consider. A GVR order is . . . potentially appropriate. 167 (1996) (holding that a GVR is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-4023.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MAGLUTA (12/23/1999, NO. 98-4023)<BR></A><BR> Magluta was a wanted man. The law enforcement officials determined that Magluta was at a house located at 98 East LaGorce Circle in Miami Beach. Law enforcement officers observed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117249.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioners Appellants have been assessed tax deficiencies (including penalties against Ballard) totaling $1. (2) that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support the Tax Court's 1 Mary B. Ballard is a participant in this dispute solely as a result of having filed joint tax returns with her spouse Claude M. All references will be to Claude M. We find that the application of Rule 183 did not violate Petitioners Appellants' due process rights and that the evidence is sufficient to support the Tax Court's finding that Ballard received and fraudulently failed to report income. Both Ballard and Lisle worked in Prudential's real estate department which was divided into two divisions: equity operations and mortgage operations. Prudential was one of the largest owners of commercial real estate in the United States. Their offices were located next to one another. Arrangements were made to buy Ballard's and Lisle's influence.2 For 2 Referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/012819P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was denied benefits by the Fund for injuries he received at his spouse's restaurant. Is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Meyer was a member of a participating local union that was affiliated with the Fund. His employment as a plumber and pipefitterwhich had nothing to do with the assistance he was providing his spousewas covered by a collective bargaining agreement between a contributing employer and a participating local union. It appears that this should have been covered under the restaurant's workmen's compensation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56C719714DFDA7E2882571C60051018D/$file/0456703.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a senior foreign service officer seeking to avoid exposure to personal liability for an automobile accident that occurred in Russia while he was driving home from work in his personal vehicle. Kent sought certification from the Department of Justice that he was acting KASHIN v. Concluded that Kent was not acting within the scope of employment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude in this interlocutory appeal that District of Columbia law governs the question of whether Kent was acting within the scope of employment. We hold that Kent was acting within the scope of employment when he was involved in the automobile accident. Kent was the highest ranking United States representative in that district. He was fully accredited as a diplomat and entitled to the fullest extent of consular immunity. The budget and fiscal officer at the Moscow Embassy informed Kent that the Department of State wished to reduce the expenses of its missions overseas and indicated that the overtime expenses for Kent's personal driver were high due to Kent's late hours at work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63C3B65888C5E57688256DF80056166C/$file/0256577.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pincay was ordered to elect one remedy or the other. This judgment was reversed on the basis of the federal statute of limitations. Judgment was entered in his favor on July 3. This lawyer was not in the office. Was there a proposed form of judgment submitted that we missed? A proposed judgment was served and filed on 10/11/01. We have it in our files. I'll have to check to see if we objected. Which was 7/3/02. 60 days would run us to 9/1. Which is a Sunday. September 2 is Labor Day. He </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/041922P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 21 U.S.C. § 881) while he was incarcerated. Nunley using a method that was reasonably calculated to reach him and. Perhaps (the complaint is not clear). That the few forfeiture notices that he did receive were defective because they did not inform him that an indigent person need not post a bond to contest a forfeiture. Nunley at both the jail where he was being held and his erstwhile residence. The notices sent to the jail were signed for by one or another employee of the sheriff's office for the county in which the jail is situated. She was his girlfriendcum roommate at the time of his arrest and became his wife around the time that the 2 forfeitures were taking place (the exact time is not relevant). Nunley still lived at the residence at the time that the notices were sent there to Mr. No objections to the forfeitures were filed. The court did not base its summary judgment decision on the notices sent directly to the jail because it concluded that there were questions of fact about the operation of the jail's mail distribution practices with respect to these notices. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984023.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Magluta was a wanted man. The law enforcement officials determined that Magluta was at a house located at 98 East LaGorce Circle in Miami Beach. Law enforcement officers observed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9821.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are as follows: 2 In early February 1993. Who was age 20. The bullets were designed for police use. This type of bullet is referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6545D465E06283DB8825708200801E34/$file/0399007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Mitchell Carlton Sims was convicted of the first degree murder of John Harrigan. He was sentenced to death. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) does not apply to the merits of Sims's appeal because his federal petition was filed before AEDPA's effective date. Were violated by the admission of confessions obtained in a custodial setting after he invoked his rights to counsel and silence. (3) whether his right to an impartial jury was violated when a member of his jury met with a member of Padgett's jury and discussed writing a book about their experiences. (4) whether his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the prosecutor's closing argument in the penalty phase about factor (k). (6) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to object to comments that Sims argues violated Griffin v. (7) whether reversal is required on account of cumulative error. Sims was hired as a delivery driver by another Domino's. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-4023.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MAGLUTA (12/23/1999, NO. 98-4023)<BR></A><BR> Magluta was a wanted man. The law enforcement officials determined that Magluta was at a house located at 98 East LaGorce Circle in Miami Beach. Law enforcement officers observed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E5F3A673466BE058825734D0052AF1C/$file/0399010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-8485.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. PARADIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984023.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Magluta was a wanted man. The law enforcement officials determined that Magluta was at a house located at 98 East LaGorce Circle in Miami Beach. Law enforcement officers observed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/976126.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That he is actually innocent of carrying a firearm in violation of § 924(c)(1). The undisputed facts are as follows: On the night of December 30. The officers told Harris that they were investigating a report of drug trafficking in the room that they had a report of extensive foot traffic to and from the room. They inquired whether there were guns in the room. Once that loaded weapon was found. The officers next asked Harris whose room it was. He replied that it belonged to his uncle or his dad that he did not know whose room it was.1 In response to questioning. Louis Davis admitted both were his. A jean jacket that was hanging over the arm of a chair. The officers also found a single edged razor with a whitish residue on it and a pager on the table with the police scanner. 1 The room was rented to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1865.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> W. Sullivan and Sullivan & Walsh were on brief. Were on brief. Massachusetts post office were members of a bargaining unit represented by the Union. The Union filed an action in the federal district court with a view toward vacating the arbitral award.1 Its complaint claimed that the award </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05b0010n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. Appeals from the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment in favor of McDonald's Corporation on the basis that conveyances made pursuant to a franchise termination agreement were not fraudulent conveyances or preferential transfers within the meaning of federal or state law. Whether McDonald's was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014309.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. The victim of Carmona is Sara DuSablon. Who was 20 years old in 1999. When the crime was committed. Which are quite peculiar. DuSablon was a junior at Duke University. She was raised in rural North Carolina. She was home schooled. Henry also apparently professed a desire to have a large family. Who herself is very fond of children. Henry confessed to have fallen in love with DuSablon. The operator responded that Carmone was not there. She was quite shocked he was significantly older than 24. Was shabby in appearance. DuSablon then told Henry that she was not attracted to him. Which was currently tied up in court. She confessed that she was afraid of being tied up. Henry responded that he was taught in the Secret Service that one must face one's fears to overcome them. 4 UNITED STATES v. DuSablon was determined to adopt Samantha and planned to go see her in Ohio. Who was in a safe house. It was her voluntary choice to go on a plane to Ohio. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nor that damages were incidental to equitable and declaratory relief or that common questions of law or fact predominated. We are persuaded by none of the plaintiffs' arguments The plaintiffs/appellants are Cornelius Cooper. I. The complex facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are these. Who are The plaintiffs subsequently amended their Complaint in August. Throughout this opinion references to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-3066.htm">00-3066 -- U.S. V. ESPINOZA -- 04/09/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3438_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Soy was convicted on arson and explosives charges and was sentenced to life im 2 No. 03 3438 & No. 04 1218 prisonment. Soy's sentence was reduced to 528 months. Facts We have set forth the facts relevant to this litigation in two prior opinions. Soy discussed with Williams who was attending the Indiana State Police Academy at the time and also with Prevatte the possibility of using pipe bombs as diversions for burglaries. The first pipe bomb was detonated in the alley behind a single family dwelling in Hammond. This bomb was designed as a test to determine the response time of emergency personnel. The bomb was attached to a bank of gas meters at the rear of Edo's Lounge in Highland. Which was open to patrons at the time. This bomb was designed as a diversion for an attempted. The bomb was designed to frighten away the occupants of the apartment above the restaurant who might witness the group's attempt to burglarize a neighboring liquor store. A fourth bomb was designed as a diversion for another unsuccessful burglary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991068.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The parties also agreed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F50E0EF54EE664988256CC5005B2985/$file/0057099.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. An opinion will be filed replacing it. Asserting that the District Court (1) erred by finding that actual damages were not released by the consent decree. (4) erred by determining that the consent decree was fair. We determine that the certification of a mandatory class was violative of the class member's due process rights and that the consent decree was inadequate and fundamentally unfair. 200 gas stations and mini markets in the State of California.1 Each is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/93-4063.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BROWN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal is one by four defendants. Who were convicted of defrauding and conspiring to defraud home buyers throughout the 1980's. Their guilt was not proved: insufficient evidence was presented that a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension was devised. GDC was selling some of its homes at significantly higher prices than independently built homes within the same neighborhoods.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/93-4063.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BROWN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal is one by four defendants. Who were convicted of defrauding and conspiring to defraud home buyers throughout the 1980's. Their guilt was not proved: insufficient evidence was presented that a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension was devised. GDC was selling some of its homes at significantly higher prices than independently built homes within the same neighborhoods.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1771.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is bargainbeanies.com. Ty's suit is based on the federal antidilution statute. That in any event the injunction (which has remained in effect during the appeal) is overbroad. The fundamental purpose of a trademark is to reduce consumer search costs by providing a concise and unequivocal identifier of the particular source of particular goods. The consumer who knows at a glance whose brand he is being asked to buy knows whom to hold responsible if the brand disappoints and whose product to buy in the future if the brand pleases. The traditional and still central concern of trademark law is to provide remedies against this practice. Confusion is not a factor here. Perryman is not a competing producer of beanbag stuffed animals. The reason is that state and now federal law also provides a remedy against the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54B7C2420215507A8825734F0059BA58/$file/0555739.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties were left with an arbitration award and two district court orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Improv West is the founder of the Improv Comedy Club and the creator and owner of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1615r.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were John B. With him on the brief were R. Of counsel were David W. Is withdrawn. This opinion is substituted therefor. We conclude that the district court was correct in sending the question of infringement of the system and apparatus claims to the jury. An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/00-15998.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. VALLEJO (7/16/2002, NO. 00-15998)<BR></A><BR> Anthony Genovese were charged with various criminal acts related to the extortion of three owners of a West Palm Beach nightclub. Grabbed him and held him against his will. Layson testified that he saw Carmona sitting at a nearby table and tried to ask him what was happening and if this concerned the money he owed him. A man Yetter did not recognize told him that his boss was inside. One of the men escorted Yetter to a hallway in the back of the club where he was told to sit. Layson arrived a few minutes later. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1697.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991554.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which allegedly was committed when the landlord introduced a competing grocery store into the shopping center. Was constructed in 1987. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0419n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where they were charged with remaining in the United States longer than permitted. He denied the application for asylum and withholding of removal on the grounds that it was not supported by credible 2 evidence. The evidence presented by the Ljuljdjurovics was insufficient to demonstrate asylum eligibility. The Ljuljdjurovics argue that the Immigration Judge abused his discretion in finding that the their application was not supported by credible evidence. The evidence presented by the them was insufficient to demonstrate asylum eligibility. The decisions of the BIA and IJ are therefore AFFIRMED. Are both natives and citizens of the former Yugoslavia. Was born in the United States on March 21. No. 03 3699 3 Milan was born and lived in Podgorica. Milan's father is Albanian and his mother is Serbian. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982414.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The equipment was delivered and installed in Tuscola and. No such equipment was sold to Amstat. Which was. Which was still subject to the security interest of Enterprise. A similar plan was then instituted to obtain approximately $150. Universal was pressuring Amstat for more money so that Universal could pay off the expensive bridge loan to Enterprise and rid itself of the short term financier. Was not limited to. This invoice was provided to Republic Leasing. The check was sent via Federal Express. The end result was that REMS obtained a payoff of its original invoice to Universal and Amstat was able to meet approximately $150. The result was achieved. Testified that he did so at the direction of the president of REMS and that he assumed the invoice was necessary to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984637.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appellants) were convicted by a jury of committing various federal crimes arising out of a criminal enterprise of which Appellants were alleged to be members.1 Appellants jointly and individually assert a number of different grounds for reversal on appeal. That the evidence presented by the Government was insufficient for the jury to find Joseph. That the evidence was insufficient to find Joseph. That the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find Joseph guilty of two predicate acts of 1 For the sake of brevity and convenience. All subsequent references to individual Appellants who are Abeds will use their first name. 3 racketeering. That the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find Tawalbeh. Appellants were members of an organization loosely termed the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFB00295C1BA4BE588256C960001A700/$file/0130057.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND TSI is an Alaska corporation that performs asbestosremediation services. The mill had closed in 1993 and was scheduled for demolition. The powerhouse was a large structure. The powerhouse was in a state of disrepair. There were holes of all sizes in the walls and ceiling. TSI's primary contractual responsibility was to remove asbestos insulation on the pipes. The project was stopped. One of the EPA's concerns was that TSI was washing wastewater. Sent a letter to the EPA explaining how TSI was complying with regulatory requirements. The letter stated that it was submitted for settlement purposes. Enclosed with the letter was a statement. Asserting that TSI was not washing wastewater into the powerhouse drains. 6 UNITED STATES v. Before the powerhouse was demolished. The EPA contacted Wade and asked him to take another look at one of the pipes in the powerhouse from which TSI was to have removed asbestos. Stemming from allegations that Rushing solicited employees to sign the false statement that TSI was not washing wastewater into Silver Bay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/00-15998.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. VALLEJO (7/16/2002, NO. 00-15998)<BR></A><BR> Anthony Genovese were charged with various criminal acts related to the extortion of three owners of a West Palm Beach nightclub. Grabbed him and held him against his will. Layson testified that he saw Carmona sitting at a nearby table and tried to ask him what was happening and if this concerned the money he owed him. A man Yetter did not recognize told him that his boss was inside. One of the men escorted Yetter to a hallway in the back of the club where he was told to sit. Layson arrived a few minutes later. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-2074.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. LEFFALL<BR></A><BR> The single issue in this appeal is whether a police officer acting as a witness while an airline employee opens a package is sufficient to make the employee an instrument of the government requiring suppression of the evidence uncovered by the search. This is necessarily a fact specific inquiry. Because the facts are crucial to our determination and we cannot improve on the district court's statement we quote its order at length: On July 23. Wilkins as Kenny Hartfield] about a package the defendant was expecting to receive that day from Houston through Continental's air freight services. Wilkins regarding the air freight bill number or when the package was shipped from Houston. Wilkins was on duty alone. The package was addressed to someone named Kenny Hartfield or Hatfield. The package was a box about 14 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3123c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief was John V. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Liza M. This is a security clearance case. Jr. was removed from his position with the Department of Homeland Security ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/94-1190.wpd.html">WILLIAMS V. DENVER<BR></A><BR> We are once again called upon to address the tragic aftermath of a high speed collision caused by a police vehicle. We view the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted. Officer Farr was responding to a request by another officer to back up the arrest of a car thief. The requesting officer did not ask for an emergency response nor indicate that he was in danger. Which was proceeding into the intersection on the green light at no more than 20 miles per hour. The executive director of the Denver Civil Service Commission strongly recommended that Officer Farr not be hired because of his driving record and felt that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2275.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have intervened as plaintiffs in this action. Arch Street predicated its piercing the veil argument on the contention that the corporations were Blatstein's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984365.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. One package was picked up by a contract courier service (AGS Courier Network) from Ward at his residence. Ward alleges that there was insufficient evidence of an agreement to conspire to support his conviction because there was no evidence that he engaged in an agreement to possess with the intent to distribute drugs. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. There were two phone calls between Ward's residence and the cellular phone of Michelle Darby in Charlotte. Darby testified that the phone was used exclusively by Roscoe McCaskill. Crawford testified that McCaskill was a long term acquaintance of his who provided him with rock cocaine for his personal use. He knew that the contents were illegal and that the contents were likely drugs. Although he was unaware of the amount. Keith Simmons was staying at the Southpark Suites Hotel in Charlotte on January 22 24. The phone contact in Charlotte that was given was the phone number for Simmons' hotel room. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/954216P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Barry Keith Wilson and Frederick Fernando McGee were convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. McGee was also convicted of assault on a federal officer with a deadly weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 111. issues. Wilson and McGee have filed separate briefs on appeal and raise several separate After consideration of each claim raised. Louis' Lambert Airport observed two persons later identified as Wilson and McGee standing in line at an airport ticket counter. nervous and were looking around. hair and a gold tooth. Because they were suspicious that in the circumstances this cash purchase of a plane ticket suggested a drug transaction. The next day drug task force agents waited at the gate where Dugan's plane was to arrive. They observed her as she deplaned and walked to the baggage area. noted that she was looking around and appeared nervous. She stated that her real name was not Laura Dugan but Kirsten Mactas and that she was delivering the drugs for a man named Big John. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A45D5174D77CDD2988256B0A0079B1F4/$file/0055195.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This opinion will refer only to Ortiz. After the case was concluded. Ortiz was required to file an answer to the complaint by May 6. Perhaps the case might not have actually been removed. Default was entered that same day. Ortiz then made a motion to set aside the default and to enlarge the time to answer on the basis that his neglect was excusable. DISCUSSION The district court's determination in this case was well within the boundaries of its discretion. Ortiz argues that his neglect to read and understand the pellucid command of Rule 81(c) regarding the time to answer the complaint 2 was excusable neglect. As we have said in a similar situation. There is no basis for deviating from the general rule that a mistake of law does not constitute excusable neglect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1208.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/052165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. One forfeiture count and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Arguing that his motions to suppress evidence should have been granted. That there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for conspiracy and attempted obstruction of justice. Holding that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence found when the warrant was executed. The government's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel opinion vacated. He absconded after he was placed on work release. Received a report from Crime Stoppers that Tylan Lucas was staying at 2316 Ogden Street apartment 1 in North Omaha. That address was for a unit on the first floor of a house converted into apartments. They had learned that the tenant in apartment 1 was Theresa Scaife. On their arrival a man and woman were heard speaking inside. The police asked whether Lucas was in the apartment. She denied that he was. The officers told her they believed he was inside and wanted to look for him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1706.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. The jury could have found the following facts. <U>See</U> <U>United States</U> v. <U>Nguyen</U>. He quickly was stopped. He then was taken to an inspection area. The inspectors were able to open the suitcase using the combination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1041.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1992 is amended as follows: On page 7. Meagher & Flom were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for the United States. Nickens was indicted and convicted in a jury trial on three counts: importation of cocaine. Because his flight was a continuing flight en route to Madrid. He was required to wait in an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 10. Cullen & Resnick were on brief for 604 Columbus Avenue. Gottlieb were on brief for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Of the Third Circuit. This is a case involving a failed loan transaction that well illustrates Polonius' advice. Among which were the property owned by the Trust itself and properties of the Trust's principal beneficiary. Of which Millicent Young was sole beneficiary. The Young Family Trust was a named plaintiff in the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy and district courts below. The Bank was declared unsound by Massachusetts banking officials. The FDIC was appointed 7 receiver. In February 1991 was substituted as defendant appellant in the district court. That the FDIC was entitled to raise the defenses available to it under the doctrine of estoppel established in D'Oench. The district court vacated that part of the bankruptcy court's judgment that was premised on the secret agreement by one of the Trust's principals to provide kickbacks to a Bank officer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2275p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have intervened as plaintiffs in this action. Arch Street predicated its piercing the veil argument on the contention that the corporations were Blatstein's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/995079.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) that the defendants are jointly and severally liable. Arguing that FACE is a violation of Congress's authority under the U.S. We conclude that damages under FACE are properly awarded jointly and severally among defendants and that FACE is constitutional. Were an ongoing threat to the Metropolitan Medical Associates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96058D191C528691882571AF007F7F09/$file/0455874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> GMP cross appeals the district court's determination that it is engaged in unauthorized sublicensing. That Appellants are barred by the doctrine of laches from taking legal action now. Based on undisputed evidence establishing that they should have known of GMP's allegedly infringing activities well beyond the statutory period for bringing suit. 1454 (9th Cir. 1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/011338P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rayl was convicted of four federal child pornography offenses. Whom he described as one of nine adopted daughters living with a father who was teaching them to have sex the right way. Encouraging her to run away with him and have sex. Rayl met her and said that Topanga was ill and could not join them. D.R. was afraid to call her family for a ride home because she had lied about where she was going. Who he said were his adopted daughters. After D.R. refused to have sex with him. D.R.'s testimony was partially corroborated by the motel desk clerk and the pizza delivery person. The clothes D.R. said Rayl was wearing. Which she discovered was missing after the encounter. D.R. testified that government Exhibits 11 and 11.1 were among the pictures of nude young girls Rayl showed her in the motel room. Rayl told D.R. these were pictures of Topanga. The poses were sexually provocative. Rayl argues that the government's evidence was insufficient as to all four counts of conviction. We will discuss each count separately. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-2007.htm">99-2007 -- KERSEY V. LYTLE -- 03/30/2000<BR></A><BR> Jarvis was engaged to Steven Farley. Kersey said he thought Clark was going to use the cord to tie up Farley. 000 ransom for her son. <p> Kersey claimed that he believed Clark was going to beat up Farley and then let him go. Kersey said that the phone call was only supposed to divert attention. Evidence at trial showed that both the stabbing and the strangulation occurred while Farley was still alive. Either could have caused his death. <p> The jury convicted Kersey of first degree murder. Kersey asserts the following grounds for habeas relief on appeal: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his kidnapping conviction. (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his first degree murder conviction based on felony murder or deliberate intent murder. (3) even if the evidence was sufficient to sustain his kidnapping conviction. Kersey is entitled to federal habeas relief only if he can establish that the state court decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/41541FE1AA3084BE88256E5A00707D52/$file/0055195.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This opinion will refer only to Ortiz. After the case was concluded. Ortiz was required to file an answer to the complaint by May 6. Perhaps the case might not have actually been removed. Default was entered that same day. Ortiz then made a motion to set aside the default and to enlarge the time to answer on the basis that his neglect was excusable. DISCUSSION The district court's determination in this case was well within the boundaries of its discretion. Ortiz argues that his neglect to read and understand the pellucid command of Rule 81(c) regarding the time to answer the complaint 2 was excusable neglect. As we have said in a similar situation. There is no basis for deviating from the general rule that a mistake of law does not constitute excusable neglect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/021297p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the propriety of damage awards. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. The suit arises from an arrangement known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981277.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Circuit Judge: This case concerns the relationship between three companies that are involved to varying degrees in the provision of long distance telephone service. Integrated decided to forego an action against Net Tel and instead brought the present action against LDDS.1 Integrated now appeals from the district court's order granting 1 Integrated's decision not to sue Net Tel was undoubtedly due to NetTel's shaky financial status. 2 summary judgment in favor of LDDS on Integrated's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. LDDS included language which clearly established that Net Tel would operate as an independent contractor: You [Net Tel] understand that you are an independent contractor and not an employee of [LDDS] under this Agreement. We are interested only in the orders for our services that you obtain. You will have total control of the management of your business subject to the limitations contained in this Agreement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971501.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was charged with investigation of employee theft and shoplifting at the Regional Exchange in Fort Meade. Brown reported to and was evaluated by supervisory exchange detective Timothy Boles. Ansley was supervised by William Boyd. Who was stationed in Texas. Although Boyd was not directly involved with any employment decisions concerning Brown. Brown did not have any conversation with Boyd at that meeting. Approximately seven employees were present when Brown arrived at Boyd's suite. Boles about what had happened and that he did not want to hear anything from me until I decided what I was going to do because he would have to be doing the investigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/042574P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnson was sentenced to 97 months and he appeals. Missouri and that Johnson was one of French's sources of ephedrine. The officer called Johnson and asked him how many boxes of pills he was willing to purchase. Johnson responded that he and his partner were willing to buy up to 30 boxes. We are hurting and this was supposed to happen last Monday. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60537.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Gabriel Buitron ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002053.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Griffin argues primarily that its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial was violated when the district court awarded damages in addition to those awarded by the jury and granted a declaratory judgment to WEGCO. I. WEGCO is a Maryland corporation that assists its clients in obtaining and executing government contracts. Griffin is a Georgia corporation that provides the federal government with commercial facilities management and mechanical maintenance services. Provide support services after the contracts were awarded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1508.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are natives and citizens of Bulgaria. Petitioners conceded that they were subject to deportation but sought asylum or withholding of deportation based on a number of adverse experiences in Bulgaria that they ascribe to official persecution based on Toptchev's political and religious beliefs. The petitioners have filed a petition for review of the BIA's decision and ask us to reverse. He was well known in Bulgaria. It appears that he was never able to hold a coaching position. Toptchev believes that he fell into disfavor with Bulgarian security personnel for two reasons: He is Catholic. Catholics are a religious minority in Bulgaria. When Toptchev was 17. A police officer accosted him while he was awaiting a streetcar because Toptchev was dressed in Western style clothing. When Toptchev was playing for a soccer team in the town of Shumen. It seems that Toptchev had agreed to have dinner with foreign guests who were staying at the hotel where he worked. Officials released him from custody only after he signed a written statement acknowledging that he was to avoid such contact in the future. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1893p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the First Amendment was not violated because the advertising space at issue did not constitute a public forum and because SEPTA acted reasonably in removing the posters. We have determined that SEPTA intended to create a designated public forum. I. Background SEPTA is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2002/99-8007.opn.html">SIKES V. TELELINE, INC.(2/13/2002, NO. 99-8007)<BR></A><BR> <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1360.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. I. Lyons is a white female. Lyons was employed by RRI from March 1997 to December 2001 at RRI's hotel #239 in Colorado Springs. That room racks were a required part of her job. H. (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/053636P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\11-8\05-3636 SNIDER V. USA FINAL OPN 11.3.06.WPD<BR></A><BR> The case was submitted for oral argument to Judges Heaney. The IRS opened a criminal administrative investigation against Snider and Turley after receiving a tip that they were not paying income and employment taxes. Jackson told many third parties that the Taxpayers were being investigated for criminal tax violations and accused the Taxpayers of several crimes. All of which constituted return information: (1) Turley had a large increase in income from 1999 to 2000 that was questionable. (3) Turley was avoiding paying employer taxes. (4) Turley and Snider were involved in money laundering. Which was the first time she had seen it. Jackson 4 stated to the interviewees that he was conducting a criminal investigation of Taxpayers. Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0351p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was arrested by the police when he was found in a hotel room with several other men who were armed and in possession of marijuana. He pled guilty to being an alien who had previously been deported and who was present in the United States without the permission of the Attorney General. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Ohio were called to a Holiday Inn to investigate reports that a strong odor of marijuana was emanating from one of the guest rooms. The hotel manager told the police officers that the room in question was occupied by two African American males. Swindle said that the five men were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0199n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. terminated him and subjected him to a hostile work environment because he is Pakistani and practices the Shia Imamya Ismaili sect of Islam. Cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination or that Highgate's proffered reason for his termination was pretextual. Et al. the District Court is affirmed. I Plaintiff Appellant Amin Hussain is a Pakistani who practices the Shia Imamya Ismaiali sect of Islam. Which is owned by Defendant Appellee Pontch Limited Partnership. Which was also owned by Pontch. Pontch is owned by Jaffer Khimji. One of Hussain's primary responsibilities was performing bank reconciliations. Which is similar to balancing a checkbook. The transition was necessary because Highgate's software vendor had informed Marshalek that it would no longer support the software Highgate was then using. (J.A. 238.)1 As his request to be excused was denied. Marshalek stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001632.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Therefore NISH was not entitled to negotiate the contract for mess hall services at Fort Lee. Was enacted in 1936 to enlarge economic opportunities of the blind. By which the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTI4ODktYWdfc28ucGRm/04-2889-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 04 2889 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. McDermott Will & Emery. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the application be and it hereby is GRANTED. Objected that it should not have to pay back wages calculated under the old collective bargaining agreement when its employees had willingly accepted new. These allegations were deemed to be admitted as true. Employers and agents of all claims he has or may have against Yonkers concerning his employment with Yonkers and his discharge by Yonkers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19998007.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We held that the district court erred in certifying two classes under Rule 23(b)(3)2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the plaintiffs had failed Our decertification of the class based upon predominance negates the need to address whether providing notice of this action by means of publication rather than by individual notice was proper. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class. (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 2 to demonstrate that common issues predominated.3 The first class of plaintiffs. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0376p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a former Olympic and professional boxer. Raphael Caprez and James Gilchrist were working at the airport on January 13. One of their primary duties was to scan the airport for suspicious persons and activity. Who was picking him up. Because he was not carrying an overcoat despite the cold temperature. Having guessed that Caprez was a DEA agent. Harris asked Harrison who she was. She responded that she was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011676.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although the subsidiary was neither incorporated in West Virginia nor licensed as a general contractor in North Carolina when RCDI Construction Management and Dr. It was a licensed general contractor in North Carolina at the time of the assignment and throughout the time that it acted as general contractor pursuant to the assignment. When the hotel was near completion. Spaceplan was neither a party to this litigation nor named as a party released from all claims in the settlement agreement. The tortious interference and unfair competition claims were premised on Spaceplan's recommendation to Dr. The negligence claim was based on allegations that Spaceplan failed to take steps to remedy the water damage for several months. Reasoning that there was no valid contract because RCDI Construction Management was not a licensed contractor when it entered the contract. This defect was not cured by the licensing of its subsidiary and assignee. Noting that recovery on a tortious interference claim effectively would allow unlicensed contractors to circumvent the rule prohibiting them from enforcing contracts that are both illegal and invalid as against public policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/752876AC2E72D7B088256DA3007BDB70/$file/0116391.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The conforming amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act have not been completed. If the investment is made in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/70AE4A8E8BF96BBC88256EEB00780434/$file/0216829.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended and the dissent shall be withdrawn. Judge O'Scannlain has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges Wallace and Hall have recommended denial. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Shaw was convicted in a California state court on multiple counts of assault. Shaw was sentenced to 136 months in prison. Was convicted on the same counts. Shaw asserts that his due process rights were violated at the two trials by the state prosecutor's advancement of factually inconsistent arguments. His habeas petition was denied by the district court on August 5. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. There was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could convict Shaw without implicating the factual tension. Shaw was convicted of multiple counts of assault. Was convicted on multiple counts of assault. Were waiting to be served. Was unable to identify conclusively the person responsible for either transgression. Sonia Marin testified that she was waiting tables the night of the robbery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-1223.wpd.html">LODGE TOWER CONDO ASSOC. V. LODGE PROPS. INC.<BR></A><BR> Section 1716 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2002/99-8007.opn.html">SIKES V. TELELINE, INC.(2/13/2002, NO. 99-8007)<BR></A><BR> <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-12052.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GRANT (7/10/2001, NO. 99-12052)<BR></A><BR> These questions are presented: whether Grant's appeal on the conspiracy and firearms charges was timely. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him on the failure to appear and the conspiracy charges. Whether statements of an alleged co conspirator exculpating Grant were inconsistent statements admissible for purposes of impeachment pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 806. United States Customs Service Special Agent Louis Mozas met with Deosie Wilson and discussed Wilson's plan to have Mozas smuggle 2000 pounds of marijuana from Jamaica into the United States. Jamaican police seized the marijuana which was to be smuggled in. So the transaction was not consummated.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C740343ED35D8C988256BE6004F49E2/$file/0056730.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court dismissed Brunette's claim because she did not allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the Media was a state actor. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which was executing the search warrant. The Media was not a state actor. It was simply a private spectator. Brunette's property is rugged and hilly. Entrance is possible only by traversing a frontage road and passing through a locked gate. Concerned citizens reported to the Humane Society that Brunette was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961195.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 1 the words </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The victim alleges that these rapes were motivated by her assailants' discriminatory animus toward women and sues them pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Morrison immediately asked Brzonkala if she would have sexual intercourse with him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5364a.html">JIM J. TOZZI V. US DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES<BR></A><BR> Quill was on the brief for amici curiae Public Health Scientists in support of appellants. <br clear=all style='page break before: always'> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971215.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No registration is for the word PETRO alone. The PETRO mark is almost always displayed in white letters with a green rectangular background. Was placed on the Principal Register of the Patent and Trademark Office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200614020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At issue before us is the application of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to a claim for discrimination arising out of a verbal contract for the delivery of food. Kinnon contends that she was subject to racially motivated discrimination at the hands of Gopman. Is as follows. Kinnon is an African American female who works as a project director at a non profit organization in Miami. Explained that she was ordering food for a staff meeting that was to begin at 12:00 p.m. Was told that it would arrive within five minutes. Kinnon responded that the pizza was no longer needed. The employee told the driver the pizza was not needed. Almost immediately after the driver was sent away without payment. While Kinnon was eating lunch out of the office at a restaurant. This is Ju . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971667.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published opinion filed 2/19/99 is vacated. She was not issued a firearm until almost one year later. VUU was not responsible for this delay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5126.html">AMERICAN AIRLINES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Mary B. With her on the brief were <U>Loretta C. We also <U>affirm</U> the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims on the issue whether American's per diem allowances qualify as a working condition fringe benefit because the court correctly held that they are not excludable under Internal Revenue Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI4ODktYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2889-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery. Objected that it should not have to pay back wages 2 Our decision on this appeal originally appeared in an unpublished summary order. The Board subsequently moved to have the decision published. Because we are persuaded that this decision may have some precedential value. These allegations were deemed to be admitted as true. Employers and agents of all claims he has or may have against Yonkers concerning his employment with Yonkers and his discharge by Yonkers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2138_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitioner is a Bulgarian who has been ordered removed from this country and seeks judicial review. He is a Roma (that is. A gypsy) and contends that he was persecuted in Bulgaria on account of his ethnicity. Where he was subjected to additional indignities such as being forced to sleep in latrines. He was subjected to additional beatings. He was beaten by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B44488BCEA69CFA088256D3B007416A7/$file/0150669.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Castetter were on the briefs. Is nonetheless entitled to acquittal of the offense of setting fire to federal land </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4258_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were indicted. Both were convicted Marin of assisting in the preparation and presentation of a false tax return and Palivos of conspiracy to obstruct justice though he was acquitted of obstruction of justice. Was JACPG. The buyer was Peter Bouzanis. Was a felon. The mortgage to finance the purchase was obtained from The Money Store and was partially guaranteed by the United States Small Business Administration (SBA). The loan itself was for approximately $1.25 million. The Money Store and the SBA were not aware that 100 percent of the funds for the closing came from the seller. We will use full names to distinguish between Peter and George. George Palivos and Bouzanis are fugitives believed to be living in Greece. 2 Nos. 05 4258 & 05 4329 3 Obviously. Bouzanis was required to come to the closing with over $350. Palivos's brother in law Dimitrios Bousis went to a bank where he was a long time customer and pledged his own accounts to guarantee a $354. The dispute was then </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-3015a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were A.J. With him on the briefs was Sotiris A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A3AC4A8F164DA30288256BBA0080B31D/$file/9935320.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
	OPINION/ORDER That the motion is well taken. It is hereby ORDERED. After considering Segal's peti tion we find that his request is for the most part very reasonable and that he is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $99. The Corporation for National and Community Service (
	OPINION/ORDER MacNichol was on brief for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER Was named in a one count indictment charging him with five counts of mail fraud in his efforts to solicit donations from church congregants for his
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER We are asked to review the District Court's order granting in part and denying in part Joseph Szuchon's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. We will grant Szuchon a certificate of appealability for his claims regarding the admission of certain psychiatric evidence in violation of Estelle v. We will affirm the District Court's denial of relief. A certificate of appealability will be denied on the remaining trial phase claims. That the Mills 2 claim is procedurally defaulted because Szuchon failed to exhaust his Mills claim in state court. State remedies are now foreclosed. Although we conclude that the Commonwealth may have waived this defense by failing to raise it in its answer to the habeas petition. We will address the question of whether the claim is procedurally defaulted. We conclude that the Mills claim is defaulted and barred from review on the merits given Szuchon's inability to show cause or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. One of which was that the state court improperly permitted the exclusion at voir dire of six prospective jurors who merely voiced opposition to the death penalty.
	UNITED STATES V. GRANT (7/10/2001, NO. 99-12052) These questions are presented: whether Grant's appeal on the conspiracy and firearms charges was timely. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him on the failure to appear and the conspiracy charges. Whether statements of an alleged co conspirator exculpating Grant were inconsistent statements admissible for purposes of impeachment pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 806. United States Customs Service Special Agent Louis Mozas met with Deosie Wilson and discussed Wilson's plan to have Mozas smuggle 2000 pounds of marijuana from Jamaica into the United States. Jamaican police seized the marijuana which was to be smuggled in. So the transaction was not consummated.
	OPINION/ORDER I. Facts and Procedural History Ann Stehney is a mathematician. The Institute is a private think tank that conducts cryptological research the making and breaking of secret codes as a contractor for the National Security Agency. NSA must ensure that access to classified information is
	OPINION/ORDER 04 2889 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. McDermott Will & Emery. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the application be and it hereby is GRANTED. Objected that it should not have to pay back wages calculated under the old collective bargaining agreement when its employees had willingly accepted new. These allegations were deemed to be admitted as true. Employers and agents of all claims he has or may have against Yonkers concerning his employment with Yonkers and his discharge by Yonkers.
	OPINION/ORDER Were each convicted of three counts of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine. Appellants were each convicted of possessing an unregistered
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Cruzado was convicted of the following charges: one count of embezzlement from a program receiving federal funds. The sentences were to run concurrently with each other. He also argues that his sentence was erroneously calculated. We reserve a fuller discussion of the facts for later sections to which they are particularly relevant.
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Oakland facility is one of four FedEx regional sorting facilities in the United States. Affixed to each package was an international air waybill completed and signed by Seljan. Inside were return address labels for Seljan's post office box and two envelopes. The letter contained sexually suggestive language and appeared to be addressed to an eight year old girl.3 1 The Customs Service was reorganized as the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in 2003. No. 108 32 (2003). 2 Customs inspectors have authority under 31 U.S.C. § 5317(b) to inspect packages at the border for violations of 31 U.S.C. § 5316. The two letters were more sexually explicit than the November 2002 letter. While the other letter was addressed to another girl's mother. You do have a very nice handwritting. To day we are sending a large box of many things for the whole family. In that box is some candy and a special [indiscernible] of Chocalate for you and it has your name on the box. Agent Vincik learned that Seljan had spoken of traveling to the Philippines to
	OPINION/ORDER While the official registration fee was $65. None of this was legitimate. Since Lee's web site and registration package were not authorized by the Honolulu Marathon Association. LEE 9825 Lee's scheme was uncovered and he pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud2 and one unrelated count of selling Viagra without a prescription.3 The main issue at sentencing was whether the district court could impose the special skills adjustment4 based on Lee's use of computer skills in creating his phony site. The HTML files constituting a web site are located through a directory on a computer server. A computer directory is like a card in an old fashioned library catalog. However a site's HTML files are referenced. They are linked together in the directory to create the whole web site. The graphics on a web page are actually individual computer files to which that page's HTML file links. Causing them to appear when the web page is displayed. The creator of the genuine Honoulu Marathon site testified that Lee could have copied most of the site without knowing much about its directory structure.
	96-1245 -- U.S. V. SMITH -- 12/31/1997 Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that the law
	OPINION/ORDER Even were we to conclude that Burke has suffered injury in fact. I. Ron Klenk (who is not a party to this appeal) owns a late federal style building located at 348 King Street in Charleston. Which is visible from King Street. Klenk's property is located within the Old and Historic District (
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: At slip op. p. 3651. Is a question that we leave to the district court to decide in the first instance. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. In accord with the long standing principle that default judgments are disfavored. Under her psychiatrist's care was taking powerful antidepressants. It was during the time that Janet was preparing to move. Thomas was an employee of Tele Communications. Janet was the designated beneficiary of the basic life insurance policy. Janet asserts that after she and Thomas were married. Although Janet was served with the summons and complaint on May 12. Who explained she had not retained counsel and did not know what she was going to do about the litigation. Janet was personally served with Kathleen's answer. Two days after Janet's answer was due. A hearing on Kathleen's motion was set for September 15. 1033 34 (9th Cir. 2000) (ERISA interpleader brought by fiduciary is cognizable cause of action). Which is the subject of this appeal.
	OPINION/ORDER In accord with the long standing principle that default judgments are disfavored. Under her psychiatrist's care was taking powerful antidepressants. It was during the time that Janet was preparing to move. Thomas was an employee of Tele Communications. Janet was the designated beneficiary of the basic life insurance policy. Janet asserts that after she and Thomas were married. Although Janet was served with the summons and complaint on May 12. Who explained she had not retained counsel and did not know what she was going to do about the litigation. Janet was personally served with Kathleen's answer. Two days after Janet's answer was due. A hearing on Kathleen's motion was set for September 15. 1033 34 (9th Cir. 2000) (ERISA interpleader brought by fiduciary is cognizable cause of action). Which is the subject of this appeal. 1266 67 (9th Cir. 1992) (person who claims to be the beneficiary of an ERISA plan has a cause of action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)).1 1 The interpleader plaintiffs have been dismissed from the case and.
	OPINION/ORDER Posner and Rubin & Rudman were on brief for plaintiff. Spaeth and Hale and Dorr LLP were on brief for appellees New England Power Company and New England Electric System (NEES). Hoag & Eliot LLP were on brief for appellees Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation. New England Power is a major wholesaler of electric power in New England. In the 1970s Norwood sought instead to purchase its power from New England Power and have that power delivered over the intercity transmission network of Boston Edison. The matter was resolved by settlement after Norwood brought an antitrust suit against them. The decree in the antitrust case directed that the annexed settlement agreement and power contract were
	OPINION/ORDER In accord with the long standing principle that default judgments are disfavored. Under her psychiatrist's care was taking powerful antidepressants. It was during the time that Janet was preparing to move. Thomas was an employee of Tele Communications. Janet was the designated beneficiary of the basic life insurance policy. Janet asserts that after she and Thomas were married. Although Janet was served with the summons and complaint on May 12. Who explained she had not retained counsel and did not know what she was going to do about the litigation. Janet was personally served with Kathleen's answer. Two days after Janet's answer was due. A hearing on Kathleen's motion was set for September 15. 1033 34 (9th Cir. 2000) (ERISA interpleader brought by fiduciary is cognizable cause of action). Which is the subject of this appeal. 1266 67 (9th Cir. 1992) (person who claims to be the beneficiary of an ERISA plan has a cause of action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)).1 1 The interpleader plaintiffs have been dismissed from the case and.
	OPINION/ORDER We are asked to examine the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (
	TURNER V. BENEFICIAL CORP. (2/22/2001, NO. 99-13381) Also committed common law fraud in transactions related to its financing of Turner's purchase of a satellite dish.
	OPINION/ORDER USFWS 3229 ORDER Defendant appellee's Petition for Rehearing En Banc Regarding Remedy is GRANTED. Is amended as follows: In Section IV of the en banc court's opinion. After the paragraph concluding
	OPINION/ORDER AS HE IS THE MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. Was on brief for appellant. Coveney was not personally liable for state taxes incurred by a corporation of which he served as president where the authority and responsibility for paying the taxes had been given exclusively to the treasurer. Ownership of the real estate was taken in the name of Piave Realty Trust. An oral agreement the existence of which is not disputed governed the division of labor between the officers. Who was a practicing lawyer and certified public accountant. Was to be exclusively responsible for preparing and filing necessary tax returns and ensuring that taxes. Insurance payments were timely made. This restaurant too was operated under the same bifurcated arrangement. Glynn and Coveney decided that the workload was too much for Coveney. Which was secured by a mortgage on the property of the Oxford Restaurant. Coveney asked Glynn on several occasions whether corporate taxes were being kept current. Glynn assured Coveney that the taxes were being paid on time.
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: At slip op. p. 3651. Is a question that we leave to the district court to decide in the first instance. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. In accord with the long standing principle that default judgments are disfavored. Under her psychiatrist's care was taking powerful antidepressants. It was during the time that Janet was preparing to move. Thomas was an employee of Tele Communications. Janet was the designated beneficiary of the basic life insurance policy. Janet asserts that after she and Thomas were married. Although Janet was served with the summons and complaint on May 12. Who explained she had not retained counsel and did not know what she was going to do about the litigation. Janet was personally served with Kathleen's answer. Two days after Janet's answer was due. A hearing on Kathleen's motion was set for September 15. 1033 34 (9th Cir. 2000) (ERISA interpleader brought by fiduciary is cognizable cause of action). Which is the subject of this appeal.
	OPINION/ORDER We must again consider whether a prison cook supervisor is a
	OPINION/ORDER Held that the Florida Supreme Court's decision on this issue was neither based on an unreasonable determination of the relevant facts nor contrary to or an unreasonable application of established federal law. That she was going to a party thrown by her friend Michelle Trammell at Trammell's trailer home just outside of Cleveland. She was accompanied not by her expected date who had car troubles but by a man she had met at the Rocky Top Market in Cleveland on her way to the party. Roark did not return and was never heard from again. The Mustang's license plate number was entered into the National Crime Information Center (
	OPINION/ORDER Indiana where they had stopped to eat after attending a school soccer game.1 As 1 The facts described in this paragraph are those that gave rise to the Hodgkins' first challenge to the Indiana Curfew law. The statute was revised and the Hodgkins challenged the new statute. The police took Colin and his friends to a curfew sweep processing site where he was given a breathalyser test and escorted to a bathroom where he was required to submit a urine sample to be tested for drugs. Both tests were determined to be negative. It is a curfew violation for a child fifteen (15). 1 (...continued) though the facts that follow are those that gave rise to the initial lawsuit and are not those of the case before us today. They are included in order to give context and background to the current dispute. 4 No. 01 4115 (2) after 11 p.m. on Sunday. A third statute in force at the time of Colin's arrest exempted from application of the curfew statute any child who was: (1) accompanied by the child's parent. These statutes formed what we will call Indiana's prior curfew law.
	97-2301 -- U.S. V. WISEMAN -- 04/05/1999 Circuit Judge. This is a direct appeal from convictions and a sentence in a criminal case. Our jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C.
	TURNER V. BENEFICIAL CORP. (2/22/2001, NO. 99-13381) Also committed common law fraud in transactions related to its financing of Turner's purchase of a satellite dish.
	UNITED STATES V. WARD (8/15/2000, NO. 99-11570) Jr. was employed by Brinks. He was assigned to accompany Brinks armored cars during the pick up and delivery of bank deposits. The money was then transferred from Tallahassee to Jacksonville. While the other guard working with him was absent. Ward was working as the only security guard in the back of the car. Ward was questioned by FBI agents about the missing $90. 000 to the FBI agents.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This case requires us to determine under what circumstances the configuration of a product can constitute inherently distinctive trade dress that is protectable under federal law. Because we conclude that a product's configuration qualifies as inherently distinctive trade dress if it is capable of functioning as a designator of an individual source of the product. The parties' roles were reversed: SanGiacomo sued Ashley charging that it had infringed the trade dress of SanGiacomo's bedroom furniture and seeking a declaratory judgment that a design patent obtained by Ashley was invalid as a matter of law. The design and overall appearance of the Sommerset suite were unique and unlike any other bedroom furniture ever sold. Although these individual features have been used in other bedroom suites. Another expert opined that
	OPINION/ORDER By offending its mandate to preserve the
	00-4163 -- DELTA WESTERN GROUP V. MCCAULEY -- 12/18/2001 RUFI is the owner of the Ruth's Chris Steak House chain. RUFI is also the owner of a registered service mark which features the words
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Are embroiled in commercial litigation in New York against defendant Farey Jones. Kwasny was supposed to
	OPINION/ORDER Finding that it was covered property under the policy. We agree that the equipment was covered property under the policy. We reverse the 2 No. 03 1154 order granting summary judgment in favor of Vision Financial because we find that the
	OPINION/ORDER
	UNITED STATES V. WARD (8/15/2000, NO. 99-11570) Jr. was employed by Brinks. He was assigned to accompany Brinks armored cars during the pick up and delivery of bank deposits. The money was then transferred from Tallahassee to Jacksonville. While the other guard working with him was absent. Ward was working as the only security guard in the back of the car. Ward was questioned by FBI agents about the missing $90. 000 to the FBI agents.
	OPINION/ORDER We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing acts.[fn5] Consequently. The Final Order and Injunction was amended to obligate One Stop to serve each of its sales agents with a copy of the Order.
	OPINION/ORDER Bill Gross was the City Clerk and Davis's supervisor. Davis did not feel that this behavior was sufficiently egregious to report. Was not limited to: (1) spreading rumors that Davis was having extra marital affairs. (2) following Davis to the restroom to make sure she was using the restroom and not talking to men instead. (3) calling the head of another department to see whether Davis was on the phone with men from that department. (4) commenting that Davis's work attire was inappropriate. That her skirts were too short. The investigators' findings were submitted to the City Council. Davis was neither apprised of the investigation nor of the substance of the report. Davis was not informed of this action at the time. A letter was prepared by the City Council notifying 2 Davis about Gross's one day suspension. These notes were presented to the City Council. Davis was then asked to withdraw her resignation. Davis was offered a new job as a property officer in the Community Development Department. The beginning annual salary at this new position was slightly more than Davis's previous salary.
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from the district court's2 order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. (3) not deciding the question of whether Sbemco's trademark infringement claim constituted an advertising injury for which the Policy would have provided coverage. I. Background Callas was sued in an underlying action by its contractual business partner. The parties do not contest that the Policy was in effect during the time period of the alleged breach of contract. The Policy contains the following pertinent provisions as it relates to advertising injuries:
	OPINION/ORDER Claims that she was demoted as a result of unlawful race and sex based discrimination. Because we conclude that Goodwin 2 No. 05 2961 has successfully established a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas indirect method of proof and has created a genuine issue of fact as to whether the University's proffered reasons for her demotion were pretextual. I. Background Audrey Goodwin is a black female. Kornegay is a black male. Mecum is a white male. Goodwin's immediate supervisor was Charles Hassell. From the time she was hired until 1998. Her work record was well regarded before January 2002 a claim that the defendants do not dispute on appeal. Goodwin's office was located in the corner of a large space dedicated to the moving crew. Goodwin was checking her e mail while employees were waiting to clock out. The No. 05 2961 3 employees in the vicinity of Goodwin's desk were James Gillin. Their naked breasts were resting on a table. She claims that she was then distracted by a work related phone call and left the image on the screen as she spoke on the telephone.
	UNITED STATES V. GREEN Vincent Berry and William Leroy Harding were jointly charged in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma with various criminal acts arising out of two robberies. All three were convicted on all counts wherein they were charged. All were sentenced to imprisonment. Green (No. 96 6042) and Berry (No. 96 6043) have appealed their respective convictions and sentences. Their separate appeals were companioned for purposes of briefing and oral argument. All three appeals were set for oral argument before this panel of the court. The panel has now determined that these three appeals should be consolidated for disposition in one opinion since they are interrelated and there is. Berry and Harding were charged with conspiring from December 23. Were charged with robbery by force. They were also charged with putting in jeopardy the life of Allison Ammer by the use of a firearm. Were charged with robbery by force. They were also charged with putting in jeopardy the lives of Paula Enix and Julie Cooper by the use of a firearm.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were William Malone and Nicholas P. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were James H. Or use of [anten nas that are designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service. Is invalid on its face. If there is no taking. We deny the petition. 1 Petitioners are the Building Owners and Managers Associa tion International. Or use of [a s 207 device] ... is prohibited.... 47 C.F.R. s 1.4000 (1996). The rule allowed for several exceptions: Restric tions on s 207 devices were permissible if they served a
	OPINION/ORDER He was aware of her