Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
GENERATION II ORTHOTICS INC V. MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY
Argued for plaintiff appellant.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Jeffrey W. With him on the brief were George S. Of counsel was Marc Goldman. Of counsel on the brief were Guy A. The district court held that the '828 and '396 patents are invalid because of the on sale bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The court entered judgment that the '169 and '145 patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Defendants' cross appeal is moot. Is useful for food applications. The claimed oil is referred to in the '169 and '145 patents by the designation
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
P.C. was on brief for appellants. Evans and Evans & Hermann were on brief for appellees Janet Seymour and Roland Smith. The mother and grandparents of two minor children brought this action in the district court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law against a social worker and two psychologists who were involved in the State of New Hampshire's investigation into reports that the children had been sexually abused. Is forbidden. Unless the proceeding is properly converted into one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Courts have made 2 narrow exceptions for documents the authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties. All or most of the above mentioned elements are present. 48 (2d Cir. 1991) (
|
|
96-5200 -- BLANKE V. ALEXANDER -- 08/05/1998
Judgment was entered for them on September 26. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
|
|
CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that
|
|
CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 5 the crossreference is corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that
|
 |
SUPERGUIDE CORPORATION V. DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
Argued for plaintiff appellant Superguide Corporation. Of counsel on the brief were A. North Carolina. Of counsel was John A. Et al. With him on the brief were Gregory A. California. Of counsel were Elizabeth J. Inc. With him on the brief were Peter J. Et al. With him on the brief were Nagendra Setty. Argued for third party defendant appellant Gemstar Development Corporation.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
CORRECTION MADE ON COVER SHEET *Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. Circuit Judge: Stretching in front of the Fairfax County Government Center Complex is a large grassy mall. Surrounding the mall is the street which leads to the Government Center Complex. The entire mall is outdoors. Fairfax County (the
|
|
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
Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. For the legal analysis supporting its decision that the amendment was unconstitutional on Article I. The Missouri Amendment orders members of Missouri's congressional delegation to use their authority to amend the United States Constitution Similar initiatives were on the ballot in thirteen other states in November 1996. Missouri have been invalidated in federal and state courts on various state and federal constitutional grounds. Yet another similar initiative was passed in California in June 1998. (2) failure to second it if a second is lacking. (8) failure to ensure that all votes on term limits are recorded and available to the public. It orders that those who do not take the pledge have the label
|
|
98-6249 -- U.S. V. FORTIER -- 06/30/1999
The specifics of the bombing are fully set forth in our decision of McVeigh's appeal. See United States v. Fortier was not charged as a conspirator in the bombing and thus the various details pertinent to his co defendants' participation in that offense need not be recounted here.
|
|
98-6249A -- U.S. V. FORTIER -- 06/30/1999
The sentence
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
28 U.S.C. § 2283. that this relief is improper under both the Eleventh Amendment and the We disagree. Conclude that Construing injunctive relief is proper in the circumstances of this case. relief. On the last occasion during which these parties were before us. We stated that it was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which requires 2 No. 03 2431 district judges to screen prisoner suits for merit as soon as they are filed. The joinder of the Bureau of Prisons was indeed frivolous. Who is in prison because he was convicted in 1999 of selling a defaced firearm. Was sentenced to 130 months in prison. Is the lawful owner of some stocks that he wanted to instruct his broker to sell if their prices fell below specified levels. The prison offers them an opportunity to have their numbers removed from the list. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101(a)(2). Apparently the procedure was not followed in this case. King was allowed to make one call to his stockbroker and then issued a disciplinary citation for misusing his telephone privileges. The government argues that calling a stockbroker is improper because a prisoner is not allowed to conduct a No. 03 2431 3 business. Indeed he is not. This is a permissible restriction on prisoners' residual freedom. Unless one is engaged in a financial business. Contingent on a price change) is no more the conduct of a business than asking a real estate broker to sell one's house is.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
While he was enrolled at Franklin Middle School in Champaign. He was repeatedly molested by the school's Dean of Students. That Champaign Community Schools Unit District No. 4 and various school officials were deliberately indifferent to the abuse. Because it was relevant to his claim for compensatory damages. We conclude the Does are entitled to a new trial for three reasons. I. BACKGROUND John Doe first enrolled at Franklin Middle School in 1993 as a sixth grader.1 The parties do not dispute that Doe was 1 John Doe and the other putative victims are all African Americans. Smith is Caucasian. Underprivileged African American boys because they were particularly vulnerable and less likely (continued...). No. 04 3421 3 a troubled child whose classroom conduct was disruptive at times. Smith would often seek out Doe on the playground and order him to Smith's office because he was a troublemaker.2 At trial. Smith invited Doe to have breakfast with him. Was the beginning of the molestation. Sexual grooming is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The sole issue remaining was whether the mandatory fee system 2 No. 01 1912 unconstitutionally granted the student government unbridled discretion for deciding which student organizations to fund. This is the fourth time it is before us. Relevant facts are repeated. The interested reader is referred to our prior opinions. These allocable fees were distributed to various Registered Student Organizations (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
|
|
CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner was found guilty of seconddegree murder. He was sentenced to twenty five to seventy five years imprisonment for the murder conviction plus two years consecutive imprisonment for the felony firearm conviction. Which were denied. Which was denied. As were his subsequent state appeals. On appeal petitioner raises three issues: (1) whether petitioner was denied a fair trial due to the bias of the trial judge against defense counsel. (2) whether petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel where a critical defense witness was not called. Since there is grave doubt as to whether the prosecutorial misconduct created a substantial and injurious influence on the verdict. The error was not harmless. This Court said: It is true that the case against Boyle was relatively straightforward and strong. We are left with
|
|
CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Tennessee state officers were investigating members of the Burke family. The officers suspected that they were stealing cars. This process of exchanging the VIN plates of wrecked cars for those of stolen cars is known as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Subdivision (2)(a) of § 169.346 describes the requirements for the creation and reservation of parking spaces for disabled individuals.1 Subdivision (2)(b) states the following: The owner or manager of the property on which the designated parking space is located shall ensure that the space is kept free of obstruction. The owner or manager is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $500. Barnum appeals the 1 Subdivision (2)(a) states in relevant part: Parking spaces reserved for physically disabled persons must be designated and identified by the posting of signs incorporating the international symbol of access in white on blue and indicating that violators are subject to a fine of up to $200. These parking spaces are reserved for disabled persons with vehicles displaying the required certificate. Only if the missing instruction culminated in prejudicial error will we reverse the lower court. The statute is not breached. It is implicit in Minnesota Jury Instruction Guide 302 that a prima facie case of negligence exists only upon breach of the traffic statute.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was detained in December 2001 as a material witness believed to have evidence about the terrorist attacks of September 11. That Brig is where other persons designated as enemy combatants. Are being held. Charleston is within the District of South Carolina. The judge held that it is the only court in which al Marri may contest his custody. 274 F. Although al Marri named as respondents the President and Secretary of Defense anticipating that the district judge might be unwilling to treat the Commander of a military prison in South Carolina as amenable to suit in Illinois the court was unpersuaded. Ruling that the location for a proceeding under §2241 is the district of the petitioner's custody and not the larger (potentially nationwide) territory in which a custodian may be served with a summons. Naming the President as a respondent was not only unavailing but also improper. We have removed his name from the caption. What is more. The President could not be called al Marri's custodian even if he were otherwise an appropriate litigant.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
O:\Slip\WP\2005\05 1240 Chamber20aa.odl.wpd
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The letter stated in pertinent part: YOU ARE EITHER HONEST OR DISHONEST YOU CANNOT BE BOTH Your creditor believed you to be honest when credit was extended. Is a debt collection agency. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information will be used for that purpose. Or misleading representation[s] or means
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellee. Wilk were on brief for appellant ColĒn. Was convicted of misapplication of bank funds (five counts). A farm called La Esmeralda (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
|
|
PPG V. GUARDIAN
|
|
99-1581 -- VOIROL V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS -- 07/26/2002
On behalf of the other American Federation members who have not seceded from International Co Masonry. The parties' various claims were tried to the district court without a jury during the week of April 14. All requests for attorney's fees were denied. Plaintiffs appealed. Haydn was a Freemason. As was Mozart. Benjamin Franklin was an enthusiastic Freemason.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Alleging she was discharged on the basis of her age. 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. The office manager of Property One's Hibernia Tower office was Mark Politz. Dean is an African American woman born in 1949. She was discharged. Was Property One's Dean was Property One's facilities manager at the Hibernia Tower. only African American employee at the Hibernia Tower at the time of her discharge. 2 Dean initially asserted that she was replaced by Glenn Granger. Hibernia asked Politz to eliminate Dean's position because it was redundant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Carlson was a passenger in a Hyundai Excel automobile that left the road and rolled over. Though she was wearing a seat belt and a shoulder harness anchored to the door frame. Carlson was thrown from the vehicle through an opening in the upper rear portion of the front passenger door because. All of Carlson's claims are premised upon a crashworthiness theory that the Hyundai vehicle had a defectively designed and manufactured seat belt system and door frame that caused Carlson to be ejected during the accident. Paragraph XI of Carlson's Amended Complaint alleges that Hyundai Motor Company is strictly liable because
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows:
|
|
ACLU OF GA. V. BARNES (2/23/1999, NO. 98-8075)
Appeal the order. We conclude that the district court's award of attorney fees and expenses in that amount was an abuse of discretion. Because: a) excessive hours were claimed for drafting the complaint and the briefs. B) excessive hours were claimed in connection with a status conference and a demonstration conducted for the court. C) hours were claimed for time that was not expended on the litigation. D) non local rates were claimed for some New York attorneys when local attorneys were available to do the work. E) travel expenses were claimed in connection with unnecessary work done by New York attorneys. F) the plaintiffs were awarded an amount exceeding that sought in their fee application. I. Or which used trade names or logos falsely stating or implying that the sender was legally authorized to use them. See id. With the complaint. Concluding that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to establish that the statute
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(2) the district court should have allowed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims to proceed under the holding of Bivens v. Certified that Mitchell's neck pain was a chronic serious illness pursuant to the FMLA. Chapman indicated to Mitchell that poor attendance was a significant factor that could detrimentally impact Mitchell's transfer request. Mitchell explained that his absence was the result of a re injury to his neck that he sustained while carrying boxes of canned goods for a charity event. Mitchell further informed Chapman that he would have to file for permanent disability if compelled to continue working as a letter carrier. Wright indicating that he was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The motion is GRANTED. The previous order of dismissal is withdrawn. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof. The owner of the ship on which he was injured. Appellants removed to federal court on the grounds that their dispute with Dahiya was subject to an arbitration agreement governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County.
|
|
NATL MINING ASSN V. EPA
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court concluded a rational juror could have found that Defendant entered into a sham marriage to evade the immigration laws. We have jurisdiction. We take the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government to determine whether a reasonable jury could have found Defendant guilty of marriage fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Was to assist Pakistani men in obtaining permanent resident cards. Porter Jamil explained to Herbert that while she would not have to live with Defendant. She would have to generate joint paperwork. The pictures were to be given to immigration officials in order to prove the couple married. Defendant's Form I 485 showed his immigration status and authorized stay in the United States was to expire on July 5. Defendant and Herbert were placed under oath. Herbert eventually admitted she was not physically living in Lenexa at the time of the CIS interview. That most of these documents were generated after immigration officials contacted her on January 27. Informed her they were investigating her marriage to Defendant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Bea) conclude that the case is ripe for adjudication. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Brought suit in federal district court in diversity against La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (
|
|
ACLU OF GA. V. BARNES (2/23/1999, NO. 98-8075)
Appeal the order. We conclude that the district court's award of attorney fees and expenses in that amount was an abuse of discretion. Because: a) excessive hours were claimed for drafting the complaint and the briefs. B) excessive hours were claimed in connection with a status conference and a demonstration conducted for the court. C) hours were claimed for time that was not expended on the litigation. D) non local rates were claimed for some New York attorneys when local attorneys were available to do the work. E) travel expenses were claimed in connection with unnecessary work done by New York attorneys. F) the plaintiffs were awarded an amount exceeding that sought in their fee application. I. Or which used trade names or logos falsely stating or implying that the sender was legally authorized to use them. See id. With the complaint. Concluding that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to establish that the statute
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Watson was on the briefs. Sellers were on the briefs. Circuit Judge: This is a Title VII class action in which the plaintiffs allege that the United States Department of State discriminated against African American Foreign Ser vice Officers. We affirm the district court's decision that the consent decree is fair and reasonable.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Nancy J. The device is conically shaped with a large opening that fits on a container and a smaller opening at the opposite end that allows popped popcorn to pass through when the device is attached to a popcorn container and turned upside down. An embodiment disclosed in Schreiber's patent application is depicted below. Schreiber filed a number of claims. 15 were finally rejected. Those claims are the subjects of this appeal. The taper of the top being uniform and such as to by itself jam up the popped popcorn before the end of the cone and permit the dispensing of only a few kernels at a shake of a package when the top is mounted on the container. Claim 2 is similar to claim 1 but additionally recites that the top comprises a ". Schreiber does not argue that claims 14 and 15 are patentable if claims 1 and 2 are not. We need not address claims 14 and 15. Claim 1 was rejected by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Swiss Patent No. 172.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Mudenge were entitled to diplomatic and head of state immunity. ZANU PF was properly served with process and thus subject to a default judgment upon failure to appear in this litigation. BACKGROUND ZANU PF is a private political party whose members have ruled Zimbabwe since 1980. Robert Mugabe was the President of Zimbabwe and the President and 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 First Secretary of ZANU PF. Stan Mudenge was the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister and a ZANU PF official. They attended (and Mugabe spoke at) a private political rally and fund raiser at a church in Harlem an event that was sponsored by a non governmental organization called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Harvey's petition for writ of certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court and our decision in Rea I was vacated and the case remanded from the Supreme Court in light of its decision in Jones v. Harvey and Jeremy were charged in a two count indictment with conspiracy to commit arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371. ANALYSIS In order for federal courts to have jurisdiction over arson offenses. The building must have been used in commerce or in an activity affecting commerce. The building itself must have been used in commerce or in an activity affecting commerce to meet the requirements of § 844(i). Our reliance in Rea I on the Church's use of materials purchased in interstate commerce and its use of natural gas from an out of state source is an insufficient basis for a finding that the Church annex was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Petitions for review of a final order of removal grounded upon the determination that he is an aggravated felon on account of his conviction for touching the breast of his cousin. Who was under sixteen years of age. The offense of conviction was 11 Del.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was injured while using Senco Products. It can drive a single nail when the trigger and the bottom contact point are depressed. When the bottom contact element is depressed and the trigger is subsequently pulled. Lauzon was using the SN2 to roof a garage. He was lying on the edge of the roof while securing a fourteen foot 2 x 6 to the roof sheathing. His left hand was supporting the 2 x 6 under the overhang and his right hand was holding the SN2. Was standing on a ladder underneath supporting the 2 x 6 Lauzon was attempting to secure. Two more nails were driven. Lauzon acknowledges his finger was on the trigger. It being constantly depressed as he was employing the bottom fire pneumatic nailer in its rapid fire mode. He contends the SN2 should not have fired successive nails because the bottom contact point was not depressed. Since it was four to five inches above the roof sheathing. Lauzon testified it was not possible that the bottom contact point came into contact with the sheathing because it would have shot the nails into the wood and not his thumb.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is required to allow anyone to transmit power over these lines. DWR is the state agency responsible for the control and management of much of California's water supply. DWR is considered a third party generator. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) over this petition for review of an order issued by FERC. We deny DWR's petition for review because its various claims of error are unfounded. FERC's decision to categorize the facilities as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 1 the spelling of counsel's name is corrected to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Branch were on brief. Leach was on brief. The suit asserted violations of Jason's constitutional rights and pendent state law claims arising out of his temporary detention under New Hampshire's protective custody statutes. That detention occurred when Jason and a friend were picked up by Officer McClellan during the early morning hours of September 12. Jason and his friend were taken to the police station. Jason was brought home. Jason's spine was injured. Were responsible for Jason's injuries. That Officer McClellan
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The charges were: (1) conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States under 18 U.S.C. 371 by committing a theft from an interstate shipment. In violation of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. In violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1).(1) Garcia Castillo was sentenced pursuant to the United States Sentencing Commission. He was also ordered to pay a special assessment of $250. Garcia Castillo argues (1) that it was improper for the district court to order restitution because the assault on the agents was outside the scope (1) Count Four is for Garcia Castillo's assault on Agent Laird Hightower. This assault was not the basis for any part of the restitution order at issue on appeal.
of the train robbery conspiracy and because the restitution order violated the recent Supreme Court decision. (2) and (2) even if the restitution order was proper. BACKGROUND Garcia Castillo was arrested September 12. The train was stopped on the siding in the Sunland Park. Canned goods that were being transported from Long Beach.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. MILLER (3/13/2000, NO. 99-12886)
Asking the teller if she knew what
|
|
97-1374 -- WOODCOCK V. CHEMICAL BANK -- 06/22/1998
Certain educational loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy until seven years after the loan has first become due. The issue presented by this appeal
|
|
CROWN OPERATIONS INTERNATIONAL V. SOLUTIA
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Petitions for review of a final order of removal grounded upon the determination that he is an aggravated felon on account of his conviction for touching the breast of his cousin. Who was under sixteen years of age. The offense of conviction was 11 Del.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that a workers' compensation insurer's right to reimbursement under § 624(e) of proceeds of an underinsured motorist policy is governed by the law in effect at the time that the injured worker recovers those proceeds. Circuit Judge: This case is before us for the second time. Holding that its earlier acceptance was improvidently granted. § 624(e) (2003) of proceeds of an uninsured/underinsured motorist policy is governed by the law in effect at the time that the injured worker recovers those proceeds. BACKGROUND The facts underlying this case are fully set forth in our order of certification. Carpenter was injured in a single car accident. Carpenter's coworker Kimberly Webb was driving the car. Which was settled for $25. Which was settled in April of 2000 for $150. Travelers is the real party in interest to the state negligence suit as well. The negligence lawsuit was still pending. A declaration that it was entitled to the value of Carpenter's settlement under her personal UIM policy. An injured employee may both claim workers' compensation benefits and seek compensation from a party other than the employer who is under some legal liability to pay.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Michael Gandolfo Albanese was charged with conspiring to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994). Albanese was convicted in a third proceeding and sentenced to 360 months of incarceration. I. Albanese was convicted for conspiring with two other men. Bartels was a paid cooperating witness for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). FBI agents were monitoring the purported drug transaction from an adjoining room. Albanese and LanFranca were charged in federal court for their role in the conspiracy. Albanese was charged in state court for Riley's death. Because LanFranca was on supervised release at the time of his arrest. The Government also moved to have his release revoked. Presided over the revocation hearing and all other federal proceedings relevant to this appeal. 2 2 Albanese's federal criminal trial was scheduled on three separate occasions. He was convicted and subsequently sentenced. Testifying that LanFranca was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Wilma A. P.s. (1997).1 This court was convened en banc to consider whether a district court also has authority under the Guidelines to depart from the applicable range when the government declines to file such a motion. We hold that it does not. I A district court is generally required to impose a criminal sentence from within the range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. s 3553(b). That range is calculated by identifying the guideline keyed to the defendant's offense conduct. All references are to the 1997 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Which is the edition governing defendant's case. See U.S.S.G. s 1B1.11. The district court held that such a motion was a
|
|
PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE V. U.S.
Argued for defendant appellee.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND The plaintiff/appellants in this case are National Crop Insurance Services. Farmers Alliance and Alliance are both private insurance companies that provide crop insurance under the authority of the FCIA. NCIS is a trade association comprised of such companies. This case was consolidated with several other actions currently pending in the District of Minnesota brought by numerous Minnesota growers against members of NCIS. The FCIC is an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture authorized to carry out the purposes of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA). The purpose of the FCIA is to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because the unpublished order that was reversed by the Court comprised only two substantive sentences. Is entitled to an explanation of this court's prior action. Hetzel also alleged that she was retaliated against for attempting to assert her right not to be discriminated against. 000 was grossly excessive when compared to the limited evidence of harm presented at trial and would result in a serious `miscarriage of justice' if upheld.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Richard Thomas Stitt was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on numerous federal drug and firearms related charges. That Stitt was entitled to a jury instruction and to a mitigating factor that unequivocally informed the jury that he would be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole or release if he was not sentenced to death. That the Government's use of the Stitt was sentenced to death for each of the three murders during a CCE. All of these sentences were to be served concurrently. Stitt was also sentenced to sixty months for one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. These sentences were to be served consecutively for a total of 780 months. 1 UNITED STATES v. STITT 3 testimony of cooperating witnesses violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 201(c)(2) (West 2000) because witnesses were promised benefits in exchange for their testimony. The Government introduced evidence that Stitt was the leader of a CCE that distributed in excess of 150 kilograms of crack cocaine in the Portsmouth.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Argue that the District Court should have remanded their claims to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Maintain that the District Court should have dismissed the claims entirely. As they depend on state law that is expressly preempted by ERISA § 514. The insurance providers argue that the District Court should have dismissed the claims because the state law decision on which they rely. Jurisdiction is proper in the District Court. The underlying claims are preempted by ERISA and must be dismissed. Benjamin Edmondson (the
|
|
98-5034 -- PITMAN V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF OKLAHOMA -- 05/22/2000
Blue Cross contends that it has no obligation to pay for the procedure because the treatment is excluded under an amendment to Pitman's policy. 1291 and affirm in part and reverse in part.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendant Appellee cross appeals the district court's finding that Plaintiff met its burden of production showing that the information at issue was in the public domain. Inner City Press/Community on the Move (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendant Appellee cross appeals the district court's finding that Plaintiff met its burden of production showing that the information at issue was in the public domain. Inner City Press/Community on the Move (
|
|
UNITED STATES V. MILLER (3/13/2000, NO. 99-12886)
Asking the teller if she knew what
|
|
00-6177 -- CARTER V. GIBSON -- 12/18/2001
Was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court of felony murder. Manowski was alone. The business' gates were padlocked. The lights in the guard shack were off. The guard shack door was open. The gate to the auto yard was partially open. Manowski was lying on the ground with blood visible. He was not bitter about the firing. There was no discussion. Summers and who was his best friend. Carter were present. Testified the characteristics of the borrowed bolt cutters were consistent with the marks left on the broken lock. Footprints near the Auction were consistent with boots owned by Mr. The characteristics of the entrance wound conclusively indicated that the murder weapon was in direct contact with the victim's head when the fatal shot was fired. Mr. Carter testified that he was not involved in the murder or robbery. Summers was at the murder. Carter is entitled to habeas relief if the decision
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a) (1993).1 She was admitted to the United States with that status on March 24. Was not entered into for the purpose of gaining an alien's entry as an immigrant. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(1)(A). Is 90 days before the second anniversary of gaining status. Her conditional permanent resident status was terminated effective March 25. Cabrera was issued a termination notice by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I Republic was party to a reinsurance agreement between a group of insurance companies. This assignment includes Pan Atlantic's reinsurance agreements
|
|
98-5034 -- PITMAN V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF OKLAHOMA -- 07/07/2000
Circuit Judges.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Wilma A. P.s. (1997).1 This court was convened en banc to consider whether a district court also has authority under the Guidelines to depart from the applicable range when the government declines to file such a motion. I A district court is generally required to impose a criminal sentence from within the range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. s 3553(b). That range is calculated by identifying the guideline keyed to the defendant's offense conduct. All references are to the 1997 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Which is the edition governing defendant's case. The district court held that such a motion was a
|
|
PHARMACIA UPJOHN CO. V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
With him on the brief were Gerald Sobel. With him on the brief was Minaksi Bhatt. Of counsel were Lucien G. That Upjohn was collaterally estopped from asserting its infringement claim by a prior judgment of invalidity and unenforceability. Hydrous lactose is difficult to use in manufacturing micronized glyburide formulations because of poor compressibility and poor hopper flow. Both spray dried and anhydrous lactose are readily compressible and have considerably larger particle size than hydrous lactose. Qualities which facilitate tablet manufacture. The '163 patent is directed to micronized glyburide formulations containing spray dried lactose as the principal excipient. Is written in the Jepson format and reads as follows: 1. Upjohn alleged that Mylan's micronized glyburide compositions infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief. Defendant Clyde Tse was convicted of distributing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). After searching Williams and his car to ensure that he did not have any drugs or cash. Williams returned to Tse's house where Tse was on the phone. The agents were not able to record any other conversations between Williams and Tse that evening. At least one person was sitting in the car. At trial. Williams was again outfitted with a kel transmitter. The DEA agents were able to record the entire transaction. On September 27. Williams was not an ideal witness. Tse's primary strategy was to discredit Williams's testimony. (2) introducing evidence that charges against Williams stemming from a traffic stop were dismissed after Williams began cooperating with the DEA. The government reasoned that evidence of Tse's intent was at issue in the case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This breach of contract action was brought by a group of thirteen insurance companies1 who provide federal crop insurance. Ruled in the alternative that dismissal was also warranted because the insurers had neither exhausted their administrative remedies nor established any exception to the exhaustion requirement. The FCIC was to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was sued for negligence and breach of warranty in the Eastern District of Arkansas by Allen Engineering Corporation. Contending they should not be required to indemnify Amsoil for any of the $1.5 million settlement because none of the expenses covered by the settlement were for property damage. So the entire settlement was precluded from insurance coverage under Wisconsin law. We agree with the district court that although Allen's initial tort claims were brought in Arkansas. 282 (Wis. 2000) (
|
|
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Howard were on brief. Dowell were on brief. ESLIC covered a portion of the risk that it faced from one of those policies (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
She was sentenced under the federal Sentencing Guidelines to a term of 33 months in prison. The latter guideline would have resulted in 6 12 fewer months in prison. If Smith is still applicable to Diaz's situation. Diaz challenges the amount of restitution she was order ed to pay. We hold that Diaz should have been sentenced under the fraud guideline rather than the money laundering guideline. We will vacate the sentence and remand this case to the District Court for resentencing under S 2F1.1. We will affirm the decision of the District Court with regard to the amount of restitution that Diaz must pay. Diaz and Cefaratti were responsible for day to day operations. Low interest loans from private lenders.2 The Franklin School was authorized to act as a 1. Pell Grant funds are transferred fr om the United States Treasury directly to the school's trust account. Wher e they are held in trust until the school is authorized to transfer the money into its operating account to pay the student's bills for tuition and other expenses.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Puig and others were indicted for conspiracy to defraud the government related to a motorcycle
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner Robert Carl Foley was convicted of murder in Kentucky and sentenced to death. Were gathered at the Foley home when Foley returned from a car auction with his friend Danny Joe Bryant. Who was intoxicated and belligerent. You caused me to have to kill my partner.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Lorincz & Jacobi were on brief for appellee. Debtor's appeal from that decision asks us to do two things: reverse the district court's holding that federal credit unions are nonprofit organizations and hold that educational loans issued to him by creditor appellee TI Federal Credit Union are. We affirm the result achieved by the district court that debtor's loans are nondischargeable and elect not to reach the issue of federal credit unions' nonprofit status. From which DelBonis obtained no direct personal benefit and on which he is the sole obligor. Were acquired from the Texas Instrument Federal Credit Union. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge.
This is the third appeal in this case concerning Mr. O'Toole was on loan to the federal government to work on a project in San Diego under a four year
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Stephen G. With him on the brief was Kevin B. Of counsel were Scott C. This is an action for patent infringement. 382 (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
CV 98 03073 JAR OPINION *Jo Anne Barnhart is substituted for her predecessor as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Thomas' applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (
|
|
02-3169 -- U.S. V. CERVINE -- 10/22/2003
Cervine was involved with Mr. Cervine was likely transporting illegal drugs. After denying that he was transporting illegal drugs in his vehicle. Unless they are clearly erroneous. See United States v. We must determine
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: These are appeals from judgments following two separate phases of a jury trial to adjudicate whether the coordinated terrorist attacks of September 11. The parties are entities with varying property interests in the WTC (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
|
|
01-2083 -- U.S. V. SAENZ-MENDOZA -- 04/26/2002
The aggravated felony alleged in the indictment was Defendant's conviction in Utah state court of Child Abuse Cruelty Toward Child. The parties stipulated that if the district court determined the state child abuse conviction was an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Announcing the judgment of the court: Timothy Lanier Allen was convicted of first degree murder in a North Carolina court and sentenced to death. Allen contends (1) that the short form indictment used by the State was unconstitutional. Jail records that indicated Allen was receiving daily doses of anti withdrawal medication. Was in fact not harmless error. Were violated during jury selection in his State trial and that a Batson hearing should be held. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the North Carolina trial court's instructions on unanimity given to the jury during the sentencing phase was
|
|
01-1215 -- U.S. V. NICHOLS -- 04/05/2002
2253(c) on two issues: (1) whether Nichols was denied his right under Apprendi v. (2) whether he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Government violated Brady v. 2332a is facially unconstitutional under Apprendi because the statute exposes a defendant to the death penalty based on a nonjury finding that death resulted from the use of a weapon of mass destruction. 2332a is facially unconstitutional is a question of law we review de novo. United States v. (1) against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States. Or (3) against any property that is owned. Whether the property is within or outside of the United States. Nichols argued
|
|
98-6397 -- SMALLWOOD V. GIBSON -- 09/10/1999
Smallwood was convicted of First Degree Murder and Third Degree Arson in May of 1993. (3) petitioner's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the trial. (5) the jury instructions given by the trial court were unconstitutional because they permitted the jury to ignore mitigating evidence. (6) the jury instructions were constitutionally impermissible because they failed to state that. (7) the trial court violated petitioner's constitutional rights by failing to instruct the jury that there is a presumption of life in death penalty cases. (8) the jury instructions were unconstitutional because they did not properly limit the jury's consideration of sympathy to the defendant. Cruel
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (
|
|
AIR TRANS ASSN AMER V. DOT
|
|
99-4245 -- U.S. V. MAGLEBY -- 03/07/2001
Chief Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The only issue on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying Debtors' Motion to Alter and Debtors' Motion to Vacate. Demonstrated that the Plan was neither feasible nor proposed in good faith. It is from denial of confirmation of this Plan and from denial of subsequent motions to reconsider this order that Debtors appeal. Barger converted the Co op's collateral and that the Plan treatment afforded the Co op's claim was not made in good faith. Debtors proposed to set off any balance found due the Co op against any judgment Debtors obtained against the Co op in an adversary proceeding which Debtors filed seeking The sequence and descriptions of reorganization plans is somewhat confusing. Was filed on November 8. Which is the one at issue in the motions on appeal. That plan was denominated the First Amended Chapter 12 Reorganization Plan. These Debtors are not strangers to Judge Mahoney nor the bankruptcy court in Nebraska. Debtors have been under the protections of Title 11 almost continuously since May.
|
|
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
Believing it was constrained by this court's decision in Allen v. We consider whether the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendant was convicted in the state courts of Ohio on two counts of aggravated murder with firearm specification under Ohio Rev. His appeal raises four issues: (1) whether appellant was denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights through the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence against him at trial. (3) whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the prosecution was allowed to introduce into evidence hearsay statements. (4) whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by the cumulative effect of prosecutorial 1 The defendant was found guilty of one count of murder in the death of Charles Sponhaltz with firearm specification and one count of aggravated murder of Steven Vargo with two capital specifications. 2 and 4 involved no unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and that the admission of the hearsay statement in issue 3 was harmless. Steven Vargo and Charles Sponhaltz were found dead on a rural road in Belmont County.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. GUZMAN-BERA (6/27/2000, NO. 98-4374)
The first time he was deported after being convicted for cocaine possession in 1991. He re entered the United States without permission and in August 1995 was arrested for grand theft. This is the offense at the time of deportation and reentry that the district court defined as an aggravated felony.
|
|
96-3308 -- KAHN V. SCHIGUR -- 01/20/1998
We conclude that the bankruptcy court was correct. BACKGROUND The basic facts are not in dispute. Seitter was appointed Chapter 7 Trustee.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Wilma A. Circuit Judge: The principal question in this case is whether wiretapped recordings. Must nevertheless be released when a requester precisely identifies specific tapes that have been introduced into evi dence and played in open court during a public criminal trial. We hold that unless the government can rebut such a specific showing by demonstrating that the recordings have since been destroyed or otherwise removed from the public record. Among the evidence that the government marshaled during Cottone's trial were telephone conversa tions recorded by surreptitious wiretap and recorded conver sations procured by undercover agents wearing hidden re corders during face to face meetings with Cottone. As is the practice when tapes are played at trial. We have explained on several occasions. The district court found that Cottone had not met his burden of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Radvansky was arrested by Telegdy and Saxer after breaking into a house. In which he was renting a room. Despite the officers' pre existing knowledge that he was currently involved in a dispute with his landlord. Radvansky was placed under arrest for burglary. Finding that there was probable cause for the arrest. Because it concluded there was no constitutional violation. Both in determining that there was probable cause to arrest Radvansky and that Telegdy and Saxer were entitled to qualified immunity. The decision below is REVERSED with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim against Telegdy and Saxer but AFFIRMED in all other respects on other grounds. Pursuant to an oral agreement whereby he paid Rosemark $450 in rent each month.1 Radvansky has stated that his rent was fully paid. Despite recognizing that this was a civil dispute between the two parties. Informing 1 Radvansky has claimed throughout the litigation that his tenancy was pursuant to an oral lease agreement. Radvansky has argued that the oral lease is enforceable through the doctrine of part performance.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
|
|
98-5001 -- DOME CORP. V. KENNARD -- 04/14/1999
Circuit Judge.
|
|
FOLDEN, ET AL. V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiffs appellants. On the brief was Russell D. Argued for defendant appellee. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler. Director. Of counsel on the brief were Susan L. Launer and Roberta L. The court determined that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract because they were unable to establish the existence of an implied in fact contract with the government arising from their filing of lottery applications for cellular communication licenses with the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission ). Id. at 51 55. On the second point. 402(b). Id. at 55 60. We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that plaintiffs claims are covered by subsection 402(b).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
VULCAN ARBOR HILL V. REICH ROBERT
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner Robert Carl Foley was convicted of murder in Kentucky and sentenced to death. Were gathered at the Foley home when Foley returned from a car auction with his friend Danny Joe Bryant. Who was intoxicated and belligerent. You caused me to have to kill my partner.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. GUZMAN-BERA (6/27/2000, NO. 98-4374)
The first time he was deported after being convicted for cocaine possession in 1991. He re entered the United States without permission and in August 1995 was arrested for grand theft. This is the offense at the time of deportation and reentry that the district court defined as an aggravated felony.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jeffrey Robert Kissner (Kissner) was convicted by a jury of three counts of criminal vehicular homicide and one count of criminal vehicular operation resulting in substantial bodily harm under Minnesota Statute § 609.21. Subds. 1 and 2(a) (1998).1 He was also found guilty of four misdemeanors: (1) careless driving in violation of Minnesota Statute § 169.13. Subds. 5(a) and 1 He was sentenced to concurrent prison sentences of nineteen. The standard of review in habeas cases is normally a deferential one. Which is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was deported in 1994 and again in 1995. The issue in this case is whether Tejeda Perez's second degree felony theft conviction is an aggravated felony conviction for the purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The district court concluded it is not. Because TejedaPerez's one to fifteen year sentence for the conviction was suspended. Which states an aggravated felony includes
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: No holiday season is complete. At issue in this case is the holiday display policy promulgated by the Department of Education (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Lawrence Bittaker was convicted in California state court of multiple murders and was sentenced to death. The question presented to us is the scope of the habeas petitioner's waiver: Does it extend only to litigation of the federal habeas petition. Or is the attorney client privilege waived for all time and all purposes including the possible retrial of the petitioner. The parties will immediately advise the court of any future rulings in Osband v. ER at 8 9 (underscored portion in handscript). 2 The parties spill much ink on the subsidiary question whether the district court would have had discretion to enter the protective order even if the disclosed materials lost their privilege for all purposes. WOODFORD 7641 Jurisdiction The challenged order is not a final judgment. Yet the parties agree that it is reviewable as a collateral order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The matter is closer than the concurrence of the parties would suggest. The protective order is. At that time we will know much more about the practical effect of the order.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a dispute over the interpretation of a regulation governing the amount of insurance coverage provided for federally insured joint accounts in a failed savings and loan association. At issue is whether the funds in joint accounts are insured as a single unit or as multiple units and. Whether the two holders of several joint accounts are insured for up to $100. Contend the regulation provides that each of them is insured for up to $100. 000 for funds held in their joint accounts and that together they are insured for up to $200. We will affirm the district court. V 1993).[fn2] It can approve or reject claims for insured deposits and determine the amount of insurance to which depositors are entitled under the Act. The Sekulas held six accounts at Atlantic Financial when the institution was declared insolvent. The total amount in the six accounts was $169. 717.52 was insured. That Raymond and Kathleen were therefore entitled to $100. The Sekulas contended the entire amount was insured because they each were entitled to receive up to $100.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The question presented is whether a state drug conviction. For which the maximum penalty authorized by state law is probation. Under which Robles Rodriguez was sentenced. 2582 BACKGROUND In October 2000. A person convicted of this offense is subject to a sentencing enhancement if he was convicted of a criminal offense prior to deportation. Was convicted of two drug possession offenses under Arizona law. The district court found that the Arizona convictions were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding Orr failed to show he was disabled under either the ADA or the NFEPA. BACKGROUND Stephen Orr is a pharmacist licensed in Nebraska. Orr was diagnosed with diabetes. When his diabetes is not well controlled. This Chadron store was a single pharmacist Wal Mart facility. Orr was the only pharmacist on duty during his work day. Orr informed Wal Mart District Manager Rick Coleman (Coleman) he was an insulin dependent diabetic. The pharmacist will take time between busy periods for a break or eating lunch in the pharmacy prescription area. (emphasis in original). 2 remain open during store hours and instructed Orr not to close the pharmacy during his lunch break. My understanding of time off for lunch & breaks apparently was a misunderstanding of company policy as presented by Rick Coleman. My leaving the Pharmacy on 2/25 was specifically for company (Pharmacy) business to pick up a CII Rx at the Clinic. I will from this date forward take my lunch break within the confines of the Pharmacy & maintain the opening of the Pharmacy from 9 7AM Mon.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Raleigh C & T is a corporation located in Raleigh. The plans were amended and restated in 1986. RCV Tech was a corporation formed by Drs. These two doctors were the sole shareholders and officers of RCV Tech. The two corporations were separate corporate entities. Davis and Chaudhry began employment discussions with Lopriore in October 1987 because they were interested in his perfusion services.2 Lopriore was hired to work for RCV Tech at a salary of $36. Inc. is not a party to this appeal. No contributions were made to the Raleigh C & T plans on Lopriore's behalf until 1991. Contributions were then made by Raleigh C & T on Lopriore's behalf for the years 1991. The following terms from the 1986 Master Plan were in force at Raleigh C & T: Section 18.1 Multiple Employers. (a) General. If the employers sponsoring the Plan are all corporations that are members of the same
|
|
98-1165 -- KAFERLY V. U.S. WEST TECHNOLOGIES -- 09/01/1999
Because we find that the underlying decision of the Employee Benefits Committee to deny benefits to Kaferly was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The dispute in this case is straightforward. Contends that she is entitled to Term of Employment (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to decide. No such forfeiture has occurred and we will thus affirm the district court's judgment. Francis Deisler is a seaman who is a member of International Union of Operating Engineers. Deisler injured his back while he was working on a dredge and he was disabled for about six months. While Deisler was working as a dredgeman for another boating company. That application included the following question:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The District Court2 granted Kohler's motion for judgment as a matter of law finding that Kohler's reasons for firing Reynolds were legitimate and that Reynolds offered no evidence of retaliation. Reynolds often did not have enough parts to meet his production quota because his output depended on the production of those ahead of him on the line. He would not have sinks to work on from the third shift. Bailey often spent their shift hours in the break room with Reynolds when they did not have parts to work on. Employees and managers were. That he did not know that clocking in and out early was a violation of company policy. Miller told Reynolds that she would have to notify Dickson about the problem. Reynolds then told Miller that he believed he was singled out by Davis because of his race. Both Reynolds and the union representative told Miller that they believed that other employees were keeping the same schedule. They noticed that he had failed to have a foreman sign his time cards as required. They also reviewed Bailey's time cards and found that his clock in and clock out times were either during the same minute or within a minute of Reynolds's times.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Stephen G. With him on the brief was Kevin B. Of counsel were Scott C. This is an action for patent infringement. 382 (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The facts are not in dispute. Which was approved by and made an order of the federal district court. 24 years after the suit was filed. The plaintiffs' attorneys are still monitoring the defendants' compliance with the decree and. Are still being paid attorney fees. The propriety of this state of affairs is not before us. The hourly rate of $113 was never implemented. The hourly rate actually paid to appointed counsel was $75 for work performed up to May 1. Which was the rate authorized by the Judicial Conference and requested of Congress in the Conference's 2002 budget proposal. Was $112.50. The maximum allowable fee was $135. The amount actually budgeted by Congress to pay court appointed counsel is irrelevant to a determination of the hourly rate authorized by the Judicial Conference under § 3006A. The plaintiffs also argue that their interpretation of the PLRA is consistent with Congress's intent. The fee provisions of the PLRA serve the dual purpose of discouraging frivolous litigation while ensuring that meritorious claims are litigated.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. MARIN-NAVARETTE (3/23/2001, NO. 00-10175)
Was in its custody for driving with no proof of insurance and no driver's license. Marin Navarette disclosed that he was a citizen of Mexico. The district court sentenced Marin Navarette to 70 months imprisonment followed by three years supervised release.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. MARIN-NAVARETTE (3/23/2001, NO. 00-10175)
Was in its custody for driving with no proof of insurance and no driver's license. Marin Navarette disclosed that he was a citizen of Mexico. The district court sentenced Marin Navarette to 70 months imprisonment followed by three years supervised release.
|
 |
RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)
Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976 This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Argue that the District Court should have remanded their claims to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Maintain that the District Court should have dismissed the claims entirely. As they depend on state law that is expressly preempted by ERISA § 514. The insurance providers argue that the 4 District Court should have dismissed the claims because the state law decision on which they rely. Jurisdiction is proper in the District Court. The underlying claims are preempted by ERISA and must be dismissed. Benjamin Edmondson (the
|
|
WHITE V. MERCURY MARINE
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > White v. The district court held that White's claim was barred by the general maritime statute of limitations. One common feature of those boats was that they had Mercury Marine engines. How open the throttle is. The operator was positioned close to the engine. Was exposed to substantial noise from Mercury Marine's engines throughout his employment.<p> Not surprisingly. The parties agree that White's hearing is impaired. They also agree that at least as early as 1984 White became aware that the loud engine noise was causing him hearing loss. A doctor advised White that his constant exposure to loud engine noise was causing his hearing loss. In 1990 White filed a workman's compensation claim in which he stated that the constant exposure to engine noise had caused his gradual loss of hearing.<p> It was not until 1994 that White sued Mercury Marine in federal district court.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/012177P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2002. 1 not demonstrate that the church annex he damaged was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/996059.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both of whom are inmates of New Jersey prisons. Section 30:4 15.1 was enacted in January of 1998 and went into effect in July of that year. The invalidity of S 30:4 15.1 were filed in the District Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. The plaintiffs one of whom was Mr. Myrie and another of whom was Mr. White in these several lawsuits were all persons incarcerated in state or county prisons in New Jersey. The defendants were state 3 officials. The federal constitutional claims were that the statute violated the double jeopardy. The state constitutional claims were based on those provisions of the New Jersey Constitution that are counterparts of the federal constitutional clauses.2 On cross motions for summary judgment with respect to those common constitutional claims. The double jeopardy and excessive fines clauses are. Both constraints are deemed to apply to state governments as well via the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. Which in terms is confined to prior acquittals. Is narrower than the wording of the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause but has the same coverage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTI0OTYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-2496-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We disagree and hold that an auditor may incur primary liability under § 10(b) and Rule 10b 5 when the auditor makes a statement in its certified opinion that is false or misleading when made. Subsequently learns or was reckless in not learning that the earlier statement was false or misleading. Knows or should know that potential investors are relying on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the opinion. The precise issue on appeal is whether an auditor may incur primary liability under § 10(b) and Rule 10b 5 when the auditor provides a certified opinion that is false or misleading when issued. Subsequently learns or was reckless in not learning that the earlier statement was false or misleading. Knows or should know that potential investors are relying on the opinion. Assuming all the other elements of a securities fraud claim are present. Payroll taxes were DBI's largest single line item. Plaintiffs point out that because payroll taxes were DBI's largest line item. In 1998 a Todman auditor noted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/00-10899.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CHRISTOPHER (1/22/2001, NO. 00-10899)<BR></A><BR>
The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the district court erred in imposing a 16 level enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3736FCC72A9DD1C188256E5A00707C00/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-1438.htm">99-1438 -- U.S. V. NICHOLS -- 12/18/2000<BR></A><BR>
Terry Nichols contends either a whole new trial or an evidentiary hearing should have been granted by the district court. Nichols' case is the failure of the prosecution during trial to turn over some 40. Reports of which were not turned over to the defense either. Nichols' contentions are without merit. Nichols was convicted of conspiring to bomb the Alfred P. Date and time of contact and a narrative summary of what was heard from the source. This form is also used to document communications between agents. Each lead sheet is given a control number and the form provides a space for reporting what investigative steps were taken as a result of the information received or the agent's message. The follow up to the lead is an interview of the source or of others who may have more information. The agent conducting the interview will report what was said on a Form 302 if the information is thought to be relevant to the investigation or in the form of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-40985.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:* Federal habeas relief was denied Texas state prisoner Rickey Lynn Lewis concerning a capital murder conviction for which the death sentence was imposed. The district court certified one of whether Lewis was numerous requested issues for appeal (COA): excused. 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. (4) & (5) counsel was ineffective for failing both to make a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection objection (where psychological testimony supporting future dangerousness was based. Each COA request is DENIED. The denial of habeas relief is AFFIRMED. I. The following facts are based on those stated in Lewis v. Was struck in the head at least twice. Was lifted by two individuals. Hilton was led outside and later directed into the living room. Where she was sexually assaulted by the man who found her in the bathroom. She heard sounds indicating the house was being ransacked. legs. Somebody will find you in the morning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-7066.htm">98-7066 -- SMITH V. GIBSON -- 11/23/1999<BR></A><BR>
FACTS <p> Petitioner was convicted of bludgeoning to death an acquaintance. Taylor was murdered in his apartment during the early morning hours of November 4. When he was found the following afternoon. Noting it was the smallest bill he had. Indicating he was helping a friend fix a car. Petitioner told Hickman that he was trying to collect money people owed him because he wanted to purchase a bus ticket to California. 2) the murder was especially heinous. Petitioner was a continuing threat to society. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT <p> Petitioner alleges the prosecutor knowingly misled the jury into believing Dickson was not testifying pursuant to a deal with prosecutors. When in fact he was. <u>See</u> <u>Gray v. 165 (1996) (noting prosecution is forbidden from deliberately deceiving court and jury. That he was testifying against petitioner because petitioner had threatened Dickson while the two were jailed together. He pled guilty and was released based on time already served. <p> Petitioner. [a] witness[] w[as] subsequently allowed to plead on favorable terms is not evidence that .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/35BE3E7C53B39D1888256B5E005DAC49/$file/0055213.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. He was violently beaten by a prison guard at the Los Angeles County jail and was then refused proper medical attention in violation of his civil rights. Taylor was granted permission to file his civil rights complaint in forma pauperis (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/94-3560.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ALRED (6/30/1998, NO. 94-3560)<BR></A><BR>
Where it was sold. The principal source for obtaining Mexican marijuana was defendant appellant Irma Alred. Who was Irma Calderon in the mid 1980's when the conspiracy began. After delivering approximately 300 pounds of marijuana to coconspirator Charles Douglas Mixon in Holmes County and remaining there until it was sold. Numerous shipments intercepted through traffic stops by law enforcement agents were destined for her. The marijuana was concealed in an extra propane gas tank on trucks traveling from Texas to Holmes County. Three codefendants went to trial.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043756p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is proper to submit that question to a jury. Alleging that when he was a member of the Elizabeth. Perkins Auguste asserted that she was entitled to qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment on that ground. Her motion for summary judgment was denied on the basis that whether she was entitled to qualified immunity depended on a disputed issue of material factwhether she had Monteiro ejected from the meeting on the basis of viewpoint. The jury's verdict is based on sufficient evidence. 3 I. We note that it is not clear what rights. Was that right limited to legal errors made at trial and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict? Qualified immunity is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0993n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question presented in this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that a court approved stipulated waiver of discharge of a specific debt. Was a valid. The Bankruptcy Court held that the stipulated waiver was valid. That case was dismissed on Dr. Barbanel may have arising out of their pending state court divorce action. Lichtenstein] entering into a Stipulation of Nondischargeability (a copy of which is attached hereto) and the filing of such Stipulation with this Court simultaneously with the tendering of this Agreed Order. She will withdraw all pending Motions and Objections filed on her behalf in connection with this case (including her Objection to Exemptions filed on November 13. This order was affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. 2000 was the last date Dr. Hearing date was set by the state court. 4 On January 12. Was a valid waiver of discharge under § 727(a)(10) and thus excepted from discharge in his second Chapter 7 bankruptcy case under § 523(a)(10). Lichtenstein
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/987307.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue for decision is whether we should overrule the holding of Gibbs v. The prisoner has br ought a federal action or appeal that was dismissed on the gr ounds that it was frivolous. Unless the prisoner
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3422EFC89DBC107988256C380004C2EE/$file/0015223.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs contend it was error for the district court to entertain United's motions for forum non conveniens because the Warsaw Convention. The judgments of the district court dismissing these actions on the ground of forum non conveniens are reversed. PROCEDURAL HISTORY These related cases were brought by passengers on United Air Lines Flight 826. Which was scheduled to fly from Tokyo. We have no occasion to decide whether state courts may apply their own doctrines of forum non conveniens to actions arising under the Warsaw Convention. 1 HOSAKA v. In some cases family members who were not passengers on the flight. We have jurisdiction over these appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse. If the plain text is ambiguous. All 18 cases are consolidated for the purposes of this appeal. 2 14282 HOSAKA v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04A529C46C98F5E588256C0500805EEE/$file/0070166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In which the EPA is the PSD permit issuer. Alaska is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Edward D. Of counsel was David C. With him on the brief were Peter D. After the contract work was completed. TEG alleged that it was entitled to additional compensation under the contract based upon its removal of excessive quantities of asbestos. The Geneva Towers were two high rise apartment buildings in San Francisco. HUD solicited bids on a contract for asbestos abatement and TEG was awarded the contract on May 8. The deadline for finishing the abatement was changed to February 15. This delay was purportedly caused at least in part by disagreements between TEG and HUD over contract requirements. The parties disagreed as to (i) whether the contract required TEG to abate asbestos in the pores and cracks of the Geneva Towers' surfaces and (ii) whether TEG was required to comply with the contract specifications rather than TEG's work plan. Friable materials are capable. The original asbestos abatement standard was set forth at Section 2080. Shall be cleaned to a degree that no traces of debris or residue are visible.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2890_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is common for criminal prosecutions to be resolved by the defendant's plea of guilty. Not all guilty pleas are alike. Defendants enter the type of plea that leaves the court free to set whatever sentence it believes is proper. It is also possible. For the plea agreement to specify a particular sentence that both the defendant and the government agree is appropriate. That is the kind of plea agreement we have before us in Paul Cieslowski's appeal. He now claims that his plea agreement was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus he is not entitled on this theory to have his plea agreement set aside. We conclude that there are significant differences for purposes of United States v. When the sentence the court imposes is legal under the governing statute and results from the defendant's explicit agreement. It is not affected by the judge's perception of the mandatory or advisory nature of the Guidelines. Thus there is no need for a remand for further proceedings. Cieslowski was arrested by state and federal agents and indicted by a federal grand jury on ten counts: two counts of engaging in sexually explicit conduct with a minor for the purpose of producing visual depictions of the conduct.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></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="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTYyOTUtY3Zfc28ucGRm/04-6295-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1764.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 5. Were on brief for third party defendant appellant Louis W. Were on brief for plaintiffs appellees. At issue is the application of two distinct provisions of the Social Security Act. Or sister is living in the same home as the dependent child. The household includes both at least one child common to the two parents and at least one child who is the stepchild of the principal earner. Because they are deprived of parental support due to the continuous absence from the home. Who is living with his father. (2) who is (A) under the age of eighteen. Neither the principal earner nor the child[ren] common to both parents are included in the family filing unit. As well.4 Such inclusion is required because the child[ren] are considered dependent under a separate provision of the statute. 1986) (on two step process whereby application of family filing rule must precede determination of need). 4 4 parent who is the principal earner.5 According to the Secretary's interpretation of the family filing rule.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1074.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Roger J. With him on the brief were Jeffrey H. BACKGROUND Ventana is the owner of several patents relating to automated methods and apparatuses for staining microscope slides. Each of these treatment steps is separated by multiple rinse steps. During which unreacted reagents are removed from the slides. The stained slides are examined by pathologists to detect the presence of diseases. At issue in this case is Ventana's '861 patent. The common specification discusses various previously known automated staining devices and asserts that such prior art devices
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0578n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The sole issue on appeal is whether Defendant Morris Lee Williams's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by the delay between the returning of an Indictment against him and his arraignment in federal court. Sitting by designation. 1 * The facts regarding Williams's crime are undisputed. Was approximately 70 grams of heroin and 20 grams of cocaine. The Government immediately moved to seal the Indictment until
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun30/03-10956-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was born December 31. Roberson was reclassified from SEA to Mainframe Programmer II (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/677DAD9054A7918088256A920075D3DE/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7016a.html">NED CHARTERING & TRADING V. PAKISTAN<BR></A><BR>
Tschirhart argued the cause for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-7016a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Heather M. Contending that Pakistan was required to pay it the proceeds of wheat ship ments to which plaintiff was entitled as assignee of a mari time contract. Acted as shipbroker and loaned Horsebridge the money to charter the vessels that were to transport the wheat. Pakistan was to make its charter party payments through a letter of credit drawn in favor of Ned. Before final payment was made. Was un able to serve process on Horsebridge. Pakistan opposed sum mary judgment on two grounds: (1) that by the time the final proceeds were paid. The assignment was void because the letter of credit had expired. Pakistan's obligation to pay was continuing and the letter of credit was only one means of making payment. That the district court should not have ruled against it without permitting time for further discov ery.1 We review such claims solely for abuse of discretion by the district court. We conclude that either of the two reasons given by the district court for denying further discovery was sufficient to justify its decision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-4106.htm">98-4106 -- KIMBER V. THIOKOL CORP. -- 11/10/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Plan is managed and self funded by Thiokol and is subject to the requirements of ERISA. John Hancock Managed Care Group (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/00-10899.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CHRISTOPHER (1/22/2001, NO. 00-10899)<BR></A><BR>
The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the district court erred in imposing a 16 level enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-2179.htm">01-2179 -- U.S. V. TORRES-PALMA -- 05/16/2002<BR></A><BR>
While certain exceptions to that mandate are granted in Rule 43(b). Judges from other districts within the Tenth Circuit have voluntarily accepted assignments to preside over the New Mexico criminal docket. In this case the jury was picked by a local judge. The case was tried in New Mexico by a judge from outside the district. Certain motions and other preliminary matters were considered by New Mexico judges and not the trial judge. After the verdict was entered. The court would have the ability to see and hear the defendant. The objection was overruled and sentencing took place in a video conference. <p> Before proceeding to the merits of the issue. We are about to engage in the elevation of form over substance. We have to conclude there is significant substance here to inform our decision. <em>See<strong> Illinois v. Will not be prevented and the defendant will be considered to have waived the right to be present whenever a defendant. <p> (1) is voluntarily absent after the trial has commenced (whether or not the defendant has been informed by the court of the obligation to remain during the trial).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul26/03-30481-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Scroggins was sentenced to life imprisonment We vacate Scroggins's and five years of supervised release. sentence and remand to the district court for further proceedings as explained below. Was arrested in March 2001 for drug trafficking. days after Buchanan's arrest. Claiming that he was doing this to assist Buchanan. was already under investigation. Scroggins later told Green that he had set up a ten kilogram cocaine and 200 pound marihuana deal with Sosa thirty days before even speaking with Green and that this was going to be his last deal and that it was going to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3981.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose recoveries under 42 2 Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 U.S.C. §1988(b) in constitutional tort litigation are not subject to any statutory maximum. That §1997e(d) is within Congress' authority. We hold that §1997e(d) is rationally related to valid objectives and hence is within the legislative power. Whether or not it is wise. I Section 1997e(d) provides: (1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail. In which attorney's fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. §1988]. Except to the extent that (A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded . . . . (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation. Or (ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation. Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 (2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action described in paragraph (1). If the award of attorney's fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213348.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Miller is a paraplegic. Miller is housed in disciplinary isolation in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002440.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
By imposing a period of supervised release that was longer than explained in his plea agreement and the change of plea colloquy. We will vacate the sentence and remand to the district court for clarification of its rationale for denying his motion for a downward departure. Our remand will also allow the district court to consider a concession regarding the supervised release that the government has made during the course of this appeal. The government stipulated that his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212924.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As that phrase is used in § 1958(a). Valoze's cellular phone number was registered in a South Georgia area code. This telephone call was recorded. Both men were physically located in Georgia. The money would only be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-2023.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the record affirmatively demonstrates that counsel's performance at the original hearing was not inade 2 No. 00 2023 quate. A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 is a Class B felony and. Fuller therefore was ineligible for probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a)(1) and § 5B1.1(b)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He was ineligible for probation. Fuller was satisfied with his counsel's representation. He further represented to the court that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and understood the consequences of his plea. Fuller specifically about his understanding of the impact of his plea on his sentence: No. 00 2023 THE COURT: 3 Do you understand that guideline computation discussions are not part of the plea agreement. Is that your understanding. Now is it your understanding that when you signed this agreement you acknowledged that the United States had made no promises or guarantees concerning the sentence to be imposed? Is that your understanding? Do you also understand and acknowledge that the Court is not required to accept any recommendation which may be made by the United States and is free to impose any sentence up to and including the maximum penalties set forth in this plea agreement subject only to the limitations imposed by the guide DEFENDANT FULLER: THE COURT: DEFENDANT FULLER: THE COURT: DEFENDANT FULLER: THE COURT: 4 No. 00 2023 lines.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2002/00-11998.opn.html">WELLINGTON V. MOORE (12/18/2002, NO. 00-11998)<BR></A><BR>
Alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain alibi testimony. Gave her reason to believe that Wellington might have been involved in the robbery. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0422n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 1 by the Union against Zurn/N.E.P.C.O. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-3305.htm">98-3305 -- U.S. V. BARTSMA -- 11/09/1999<BR></A><BR>
922(g)(1) and was sentenced to fifty eight months imprisonment. Also claiming he was entitled to presentence notice of the court's intention to consider imposing sex offender registration as a special condition of supervised release. A three level downward adjustment was recommended for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983230P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that the wage rate dispute is not subject to the arbitration clause of the agreement and accordingly. I. The union is the collective bargaining representative for the production and maintenance workers employed by the company at its plant in Sullivan. A bit of background information is necessary to explain the present dispute. Employees would receive bonus compensation only to the extent any bonus earned exceeded the five cent per hour wage increase employees were not allowed to accumulate both benefits simultaneously. Which was in the 1994 agreement. Maintained its position that the grievance was not valid under the 1996 collective bargaining agreement. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and affirming if the evidence shows
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/992282P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of the election difficulties of black citizens in Crittenden County. The plaintiffs' substantive claims are based on 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(1). We have a definite and firm conviction that the Court's findings were mistaken. Is a small city in Crittenden County. Crawfordsville is .41 square miles in size and is bisected by a railroad track that runs east to west through the City. There are only twelve streets in Crawfordsville. Residents south of the tracks are all black. Residents north of the railroad tracks are primarily white. Four black citizens were elected to four of the five Crawfordsville City Council positions. Were held by white people. Is Asian. Howe is a defendant in this case. The white candidates were disqualified by court order. The candidate defeated in the 1992 election for City Recorder was Mary Freeman. William Howe was again elected Mayor. During the time that all Council members were black. A defendant in one of the cases was Mary Freeman.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002375.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide if a state misdemeanor conviction for vehicular homicide is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1980p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery 600 Thirteenth Street. Venue is proper pursuant to I.R.C. We will affirm in part. Each of ACM's three partners was created as a subsidiary of a larger entity several days before ACM's formation. Southampton was incorporated under Delaware law on October 24. Kannex Corporation N.V. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96DF119332A1DE9B88256E5A00707BF5/$file/9956682.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because certain of the prosecutors' acts were not done in their role as advocates. They are not shielded by absolute immunity. Milstein is a criminal defense attorney. Who was tried for two counts of homicide. Millward was acquitted of one count. A defense witness in the Millward trial who was then serving a California penal sentence. Mischaracterize the `evidence' against plaintiff during grand jury proceedings where said defendants . . . posed as `advisors' when in reality [they] were complaining witnesses.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFF79ACA6427EF7988256ABF007BC839/$file/9856842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Two utility workers were terminated after their company learned from its medical review officer. Whom the company believed was a licensed physician. The medical review officer was arrested for impersonating a licensed physician. Once the workers' union learned that the medical review officer was an imposter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellants Lorenza Wilson (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0917p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This suit was brought on behalf of sixteen children who had been placed in DHS's care by orders of the Family Court Division of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001586.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P. 23(f) is whether plaintiffs' securities fraud claims satisfy the requirements for class certification under Fed. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. P. 23 to provide for interlocutory appeal by permission of the court of appeals.1 Recognizing that denying or granting class certification is often the defining moment in class actions (for it may sound the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-6056.htm">00-6056 -- ROJEM V. GIBSON -- 03/30/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUzOTEtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5391-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court's denial of Adams's motion to dismiss the indictment for a speedy trial violation is affirmed. The order denying withdrawal of the guilty plea and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision. That the district court should have dismissed the indictment for violations of the Speedy Trial Act 2 because we find no such violations occurred. Adams maintains that the court should not have accepted his plea because Fed. Adams consistently admitted to knowing only that he was involved in a marijuana conspiracy. 181 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that defendant is liable for the amount of cocaine her co conspirator conspired to import provided that defendant knew of the quantity and substance involved. Or it was at least reasonably foreseeable to her). Adams contends that this was error because his allocution should have signaled that he did not understand the nature of the charge to which he was pleading. The district court should have either refused to accept the plea.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/967623.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident. The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order. The critical issue there is the trial plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that they were exposed to doses of radiation sufficient to cause their neoplasms. Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/061647P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was defective and caused the fire. The expert based these conclusions on burn patterns and damage and on the facts that the remains of the PowerChair were sitting at the center of the area of origin and that no other appliance in the area of origin contained batteries or was connected to an external power source at the time of the fire. Hickerson's expert witness on the basis that he was not an expert in the engineering or manufacturing of motorized chairs or scooters and was therefore unqualified to identify a specific defect in the PowerChair. He could not determine whether the shorted cable was a cause or a result of the fire. He could not determine if the shorted wires were a cause or a result of the fire. The investigator from the consulting firm was William L. Schoffstall was an experienced firefighter and a certified and experienced fire scene investigator. Family members were already sorting through the remains and were in the process of removing items from the scene.1 The family members complied with a request to exit the fire scene until after the investigation was complete.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU5NjUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5965-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The crux of Shah's complaint is that defendants' conflicts of interest arising from their issuing analyst reports rating and evaluating actual or potential investment banking clients of the firm together with the firm's failure to disclose these improper business practices to its own shareholders artificially inflated the price of Morgan Stanley stock purchased between July 1. Finding that plaintiff was on inquiry notice more than two years before filing suit. The district court concluded that 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the claims were time barred and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. affirm. We analysts performed investment banking functions and were compensated based on their effectiveness in securing investment banking business for the firm. It is alleged. Classes of investors have filed numerous lawsuits against Morgan Stanley and other financial institutions alleging 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 securities fraud based on the conflicts uncovered by the agency investigations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110319.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Knowing the same to have been stolen. (Count seven).1 Appellant was sentenced to 60 months as to count one. Although Volpe was aided by a local coconspirator. After the door was opened. Gigliotti then decided to dispose of all of the jewelry except the diamond ring because he believed the rest of the jewelry was worthless. The diamond ring was eventually purchased by Rafidi for $22. The money was divided among the co conspirators. Appellant's cut was $10. Gigliotti's was $8000. Volpe's was $4000. Discussion There are two issues Appellant advances that warrant discussion.2 We first address Appellant's argument that the government failed to prove the necessary effect on interstate commerce as required by the Hobbs Act. (Count Appellant's other challenges are all based on the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial. We have reviewed the record and believe they have no merit and do not warrant further discussion. Any discussion of interstate commerce herein is applicable to counts two. 1271 (11th Cir. 2001) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110215.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
KAHN CLERK Petitioner Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Leslie English by the Georgia state courts in 1987. We conclude that Crawford is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence. Facts Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted for the murder of his 29 month old niece. The defendant was married to. The defendant was intoxicated and. During this time the victim was in the care of Mrs. He stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/983318P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(6) (1997) because he is a person prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a prior felony conviction. The district court added two offense levels for the specific offense characteristic under subsection (b)(4) that the firearms were stolen. Hawkins' only argument on appeal is that the district court impermissibly double counted when it enhanced his offense level pursuant to subsection (b)(4). Hawkins does not dispute that section 2K2.1 is the appropriate guideline for determining his sentence. Because the guns were not stolen prior to his acquisition of them in the burglary. A two level enhancement under subsection (b)(4) is inappropriate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993455.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cefaratti pleaded not guilty and was released after executing an unsecured bond. The S 1957 charge is of a lesser offense than theS 1956 charge in the original indictment. S 3B1.1(c) and that the sentencing range of 51 to 63 months was unconstitutionally disproportionate to the sentences 1. The court found that the two level adjustment for playing a leadership role was warranted and imposed a sentence of 51 months. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Cefaratti was an owner and also the president of the Franklin School of Cosmetology and Hair Design in Elizabeth. Students were eligible for federalfinancial assistance only if they had a high school diploma. A student was considered to be in default after a 180 day grace period if the student failed to make payments unless the student was granted a deferment or forbearance for his or her repayment obligations. Cefaratti implemented a scheme to manipulate Franklin's default rate by submitting false deferment and forbearance forms to student loan lenders and by making payments on behalf of student borrowers who were on the verge of defaulting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/018.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: After his third death sentence for the murder of Irvin and Rose Bronstein was affirmed by the Maryland courts. Irvin and Rose Bronstein were found dead in their Baltimore home. Their residence had been ransacked and some of their property was missing. Petitioner John Booth El and William
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042538np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Facts The following facts are undisputed. Marianne Caufield (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014134.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a Florida laboratory that conducted blood and urine testing. The TRO agreements purportedly allowed the doctors to authorize lab work for an individual if his or her own doctor was not available to do so. The TRO agreements served to disguise the kickbacks that were given in return for the patient referrals. Medicare reimbursed CCL 1 Liss and Spuza are medical doctors. 2 $183. The government concedes that all of those referrals were made for legitimate medical reasons. It is undisputed that those referrals were made for legitimate medical reasons. The PSI combined all counts into a single group because the offense level was to be determined by the total amount of harm or loss. Which is the guideline for fraud or deceit. Restitution was set in the amount of $55. It was not convinced that Liss had obstructed justice. Alleging that he was entitled to a downward departure on the grounds of (1) physical health. The enhancement was unwarranted. He argued that those payments were legitimate and that he had received no funds from CCL for the equipment sublease because CCL paid the bank directly.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-14134.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. LISS (9/21/2001, NO. 00-14134)<BR></A><BR>
Was a Florida laboratory that conducted blood and urine testing. The TRO agreements purportedly allowed the doctors to authorize lab work for an individual if his or her own doctor was not available to do so. The TRO agreements served to disguise the kickbacks that were given in return for the patient referrals.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/003466.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cross and Melograne argue that their appellate counsel in Cross I was ineffective for failing to argue that United States v. Because it is not reasonably probable that the Pelullo argument would have succeeded had it been raised. I. Background The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200011998.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain alibi testimony. Gave her reason to believe that Wellington might have been involved in the robbery. Locke stated that the male wore a black baseball cap and a satin/silky suit that was brownish/copper in color. He commented that the moustache he saw on the night in question was different from the one shown in the photo line up. Stated that he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3239_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The benefits of recognition are several. If an organization is officially recognized by the law school. The upside is even more benefits. Groups that register with the No. 05 3239 3 university also get university money (it is not clear how much) and access to meeting space at the SIU student center. CLS is a nationwide association of legal professionals and law students who share (broadly speaking) a common faith Christianity. Members are expected to subscribe to a statement of faith and agree to live by certain moral principles. Is that sexual activity outside of a traditional (one man. One woman) marriage is forbidden. It explained that while
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-1345.htm">97-1345 -- U.S. V. YOUNG -- 12/18/1998<BR></A><BR>
The Youngs were placed in a half way house pending sentencing. They were apprehended in June. Holding that civil in rem forfeitures were not punishment for purposes of the double jeopardy clause. <u>Ursery</u> provided clear precedent for the resolution of Mr. 1135 (10th Cir. 1994). <p> Because the right to a speedy trial is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0MjAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5420-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The most prominent feature of which was his restoration to his job. The magistrate judge concluded that the equitable relief did not have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTU0MTFfc28ucGRm/05-5411_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/98-4230.ma2.html">RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)<BR></A><BR>
Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976</P> <P> This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011845.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 6 the status line is corrected to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0206n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the final decision of Defendant Unum Provident Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/991687P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal by Bradley Jon Simonson. Brian Feist was traveling eastbound on Interstate 94 near downtown Minneapolis and was killed when the pursued suspect's car crashed into him while traveling against traffic. This interlocutory appeal followed.1 The essential question in this case is whether Officer Simonson's conduct rises to the level of a due process deprivation under the Fourteenth Amendment. Johnson holds that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity where the appellant seeks review only of the district court's determination that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that particular conduct occurred. The facts leading up to the crash and Feist's death are essentially undisputed. 1382 (8th Cir. 1992) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1467.html">ELAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. MAYO<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTU1MjZfc28ucGRm/04-5526_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1137.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Associates</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0112A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 7 the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0193p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Diane Moon appeals the district court's denial of * This decision was originally issued as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2002/00-11998.opn.html">WELLINGTON V. MOORE (12/18/2002, NO. 00-11998)<BR></A><BR>
Alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain alibi testimony. Gave her reason to believe that Wellington might have been involved in the robbery. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-2931.man.html">WHITE V. MERCURY MARINE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. The district court held that White's claim was barred by the general maritime statute of limitations. One common feature of those boats was that they had Mercury Marine engines. How open the throttle is. The operator was positioned close to the engine. Was exposed to substantial noise from Mercury Marine's engines throughout his employment.<p> Not surprisingly. The parties agree that White's hearing is impaired. They also agree that at least as early as 1984 White became aware that the loud engine noise was causing him hearing loss. A doctor advised White that his constant exposure to loud engine noise was causing his hearing loss. In 1990 White filed a workman's compensation claim in which he stated that the constant exposure to engine noise had caused his gradual loss of hearing.<p> It was not until 1994 that White sued Mercury Marine in federal district court.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4248.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Yetunde Balogun attempted to enter the United States without a valid entry document or labor certification and was placed in custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/992018P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In particular when the manager was absent. Taylor suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. There were no regular cashier positions available. Hudspeth told her that there were no positions available at that time that met that description. Hudspeth also later contacted Taylor's doctor's office about the release note and was of the opinion that what the nurse described as Taylor's restrictions were not what Taylor had said they were. She will likely always require medication for it. No cashier or head cashier positions were available. Hudspeth informed Taylor that he would offer her a cashier position when 2 one became available but that she would have to accept a pay cut in her hourly wage. Taylor was not offered a position at the convenience store despite Nimock's hiring of several new cashiers during those months. The court also found no evidence to support Taylor's contention that relevant employment decisions were motivated by improper animus. Summary judgment is proper if the evidence. Demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and 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-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/06-3105a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Amy Berman Jackson and Gloria B. Zener were on the brief for amici curiae Thomas S. Were on the brief as amici curiae in support of appellant. Dietz were on the brief for amicus curiae Abner J. Poe was on the brief for amici curiae Stanley M. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Weismann were on the brief for amicus curiae Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington supporting affirmance. Barber were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of appellee and urging affirmance. Di Liberto were on the brief for amicus curiae Judicial Watch. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a motion. The question on appeal is whether the procedures under which the search was conducted were sufficiently protective of the legislative privilege created by the Speech or Debate Clause. The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive and accordingly violated the Clause. Depends upon a determination of which documents are privileged and then.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972319.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether an attorney who provided no defense at the guilt or penalty phase was ineffective in defending a young drug dealer. Who was an alcohol and drug abuser. When relief was denied in district court. We VACATE the denial of habeas relief as to the death sentence and REMAND to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if petitioner is entitled to habeas relief because of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. Who was unemployed but a drug dealer and For factual completeness to address the issues on appeal in our independent review. We include facts from affidavits and expert reports that were exhibits at the 3.850 proceeding but were not part of the record before the district court. It was evident that we needed to review them. The exhibits were filed as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002423.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Novant argues that the documents Virmani seeks to discover are privileged. Virmani is an obstetrician gynecologist who was granted medical staff membership and clinical privileges at Presbyterian Hospital and Presbyterian Hospital Matthews (collectively. Virmani states that this is a known possible complication of the procedure. Which is composed of three physicians. Using a committee comThe hospitals are non parties that are subsidiaries of Novant. Arguing that the peer review materials were privileged under North Carolina law. That the scope of Virmani's discovery requests was overly broad. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge McKnight. R. Evid. 501.3 Whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 is a mixed question of law and fact. Evidentiary privileges
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/00-2018.htm">00-2018 -- U.S. V. COMBS -- 10/12/2001<BR></A><BR>
Omar Combs and Bruce Paul Williams were convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute of more than 100 pounds of marijuana. We have consolidated them for the purpose of this disposition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002193.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Denied the college's request for money because the Commission believed that Columbia Union was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTQ2OTFfc28ucGRm/05-4691_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. It hereby is. Whether petitioner has presented evidence sufficient to satisfy his burden of proof is a question of law. An alien is presumed eligible for withholding if she can show that she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051070p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The caption when the appeal was initially docketed included the captions for all the individual actions. Which was the investment advisor to the Alliance Premier Growth Fund. Are before us on appellants' appeal of the District Court's dismissal of their complaint on statute of limitations grounds. We will affirm. ķķ 348 50 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001930.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Among the excessive charges and fees was a $4. The Note was secured by a second deed of trust against Plaintiffs' home (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4221_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their money laundering convictions were premised upon the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-1035a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Paul D. With her on the briefs were Brian Wolfman and Scott L. Siegel was on the briefs for intervenors California Trucking Association. Fields was on the brief for amicus curiae Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in support of petitioners. With him on the brief were Peter D. Fairley Spillman were on the brief of intervenors American Trucking Associations. I This is the second time this court has considered a challenge to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's attempt to modify its hours of service regulations. Much of the relevant background is set forth in our opinion in Public Citizen v. The current rule was promulgated under the authority of both the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984. The regulations shall ensure
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0016p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court held that the arbitration provisions contained in five agreements between the Plaintiff Appellee and the DefendantsAppellants were not enforceable because four of those provisions were fraudulently induced. Because a fifth agreement was superseded by subsequent criminal conduct and the other four agreements. JURISDICTION We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. We also have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A). While a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI1NjBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2560_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A habeas court must evaluate whether that analysis was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent governing direct review of constitutional error. That the state court's holding in this case that the putative error was harmless was not unreasonable. Such error was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of petitioner's guilt. The error would not have been harmless. The prosecution's central theory was that the episode involved three shooters rather than two. The testimony of several noncooperating witnesses was more equivocal. Held that the call was sufficiently contemporaneous with the described event to qualify for admission under New York's present sense impression exception.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/881698FD5B39100588256B56005F0766/$file/0016649.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Were playing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/053686P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) the district court erred in determining that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Background The five plaintiffs in this case are motivational tools businesses associated with the Amway trade. Are the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/04-1414a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Cynthia S. With him on the briefs was Wallace F. With him on the briefs were Noel H. With them on the brief was Robert H. With him on the brief were Ilia Levitine and Stephen G. Roby were on the brief for intervenors Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor Duke Energy Shared Services. Is a nonprofit corporation that controls the transmission of electricity over a grid spanning 15 Midwestern states. Its original tariff was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and went into effect in 2002. Who are electricity sellers in MISO's markets subject to the new tariff's rules and liabilities. Who are electricity buyers under contracts predating the establishment of MISO. Any such rate or charge that is not just and reasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5092C5F12159A34188256E5A00707CDA/$file/9855853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Regula contends that the Delta Plan should have accorded deference to the opinions of his treating physicians and considered vocational evidence in making its benefits determination. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a determination as to whether the Delta Plan may have been acting under a conflict of interest. Thus whether the court should have applied a less deferential standard of review to the Plan's decision to discontinue Regula's benefits. I. The Delta Plan is a non contributory employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI1NjBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2560_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A habeas court must evaluate whether that analysis was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent governing direct review of constitutional error. That the state court's holding in this case that the putative error was harmless was not unreasonable. Such error was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of petitioner's guilt. The error would not have been harmless. The prosecution's central theory was that the episode involved three shooters rather than two. The testimony of several noncooperating witnesses was more equivocal. Held that the call was sufficiently contemporaneous with the described event to qualify for admission under New York's present sense impression exception.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0365p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Macias argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial based on the alleged violation of his right of confrontation that occurred when an inculpatory statement of a non testifying co conspirator was introduced at trial. Officers with the Louisville and Jefferson County Metro Narcotics Task Force received information that a Hispanic male from California was registered as a guest at a Red Roof Inn in Louisville. Kentucky and was involved in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/043160P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is substituted as party appellee. 1 district court2 denied habeas relief. Several drug dealers were arrested in Cainsville. A drug dealer who was not arrested. Middleton told another individual there were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943560.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where it was sold. The principal source for obtaining Mexican marijuana was defendant appellant Irma Alred. Who was Irma Calderon in the mid 1980's when the conspiracy began. After delivering approximately 300 pounds of marijuana to coconspirator Charles Douglas Mixon in Holmes County and remaining there until it was sold. Numerous shipments intercepted through traffic stops by law enforcement agents were destined for her. The marijuana was concealed in an extra propane gas tank on trucks traveling from Texas to Holmes 3 County. Three codefendants went to trial.2 At least twenty one smuggling ventures were documented by law enforcement In addition to Irma Alred and Roy Alred. The other seven defendants named in the superseding indictment were: Charlie Junior Alred. The other three defendants who went to trial with Irma Alred and Roy Alred were Virginia Lee Blackmon. The marijuana was hidden in an extra propane gas tank concealed on trucks during the trip from Texas to North Florida. Gonzalez was stopped by the Florida Highway Patrol after leaving the North Florida area on April 22.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943560.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where it was sold. The principal source for obtaining Mexican marijuana was defendant appellant Irma Alred. Who was Irma Calderon in the mid 1980's when the conspiracy began. After delivering approximately 300 pounds of marijuana to coconspirator Charles Douglas Mixon in Holmes County and remaining there until it was sold. Numerous shipments intercepted through traffic stops by law enforcement agents were destined for her. The marijuana was concealed in an extra propane gas tank on trucks traveling from Texas to Holmes County. Three codefendants went to trial.2 At least twenty one smuggling ventures were documented by law In addition to Irma Alred and Roy Alred. The other seven defendants named in the superseding indictment were: Charlie Junior Alred. The other three defendants who went to trial with Irma Alred and Roy Alred were Virginia Lee Blackmon. Roy Alred and the three remaining codefendants were convicted. Irma Alred was sentenced to 364 months of imprisonment. Roy Alred was sentenced to 293 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943423.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is now before us for the second time. appeal are: The issues presented on (1) whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee can assert a bad faith claim against an insurer when the underlying cause of action accrued after the named insured was discharged in bankruptcy. (2) if such a claim is found to be cognizable. What is the measure of recovery. (3) whether the bankruptcy trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest. The measure of recovery is the Honorable William C. The trustee is not entitled to prejudgment interest. I. BACKGROUND The general factual background for this case is described in detail in Camp v. Is the insurer of Dr. On several occasions both before and after Kimbell's petition was filed. Paul could not be liable for bad faith refusal to settle because its insured Kimbell was bankrupt and could not be held personally liable for the excess judgment. Such that the named insured was never personally liable for any amount of the judgment. A second question certified to the Florida Supreme Court involved the construction of particular policy language and is not repeated here.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5100.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was John S. Of counsel on the brief were James F. With her on the brief were Peter D. The United States is liable for the use of a method patent only when it practices every step of the claimed method in the United States. I. Zoltek Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzNTZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1356_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendant testified that his real name is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/982706P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O'Sullivan was laid off from her job as the women's resource center director and gender equity coordinator for Lake Superior College (LSC). States are immune from federal lawsuits unless the state consents or Congress abrogates the states' immunity. Although we have held Congress lacks Fourteenth Amendment power to abrogate a state's sovereign immunity for lawsuits seeking unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The State defendants argue the EPA cannot be justified as an exercise of Fourteenth Amendment power because the Act is substantive rather than remedial legislation. 519 (1997) (Congress's power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is remedial. The Act is remedial rather than substantive legislation. The State defendants contend that even if O'Sullivan's EPA claim is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. O'Sullivan next asserts the district court should not have granted Dr. She complained to the administration that federal grant dollars were not being spent lawfully on gender equity programs in accordance with the grants' purposes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1695.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Attorney was on brief for appellee.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/993.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Royal acknowledged that he realized Officer Wallace was not Cooper. Are you drunk? The door to the cruiser was wide open and the driver's window was shattered. Officer Wallace was seated in his cruiser. An autopsy revealed that Officer Wallace had been hit twice in the head and that one of these shots was fatal. He contends that he is actually innocent of capital murder. Royal contends that he is factually innocent of capital murder because.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1548.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. I. Background The facts of this case are not seriously disputed. He was advised of his Miranda rights and taken to the police station in Salisbury. Other than when he mentioned a friend who was dying of cancer. Coraine is under psychiatric care at the Lynn Hospital out patient psychiatric unit. He is under medications of several mood and mind altering drugs. It was approximately 1:00 p.m. About an hour after Coraine was first arrested. Such as whether the police would have to unlock his mobile home in order to search it. Coraine was a convicted felon. He also argued that his consent was invalid because he was suffering from an anxiety attack that impaired his ability to think freely at the time. Finding that (1) although the police told Coraine that he might be home in time for dinner if he were released on bail. He was not suffering from an anxiety attack when he consented to the search. Even if he was somewhat upset at times. The district court's findings of fact deserve deference as long as a reasonable view of the evidence will support them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI1MTEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2511-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Three other appeals from the District Court's allocation and distribution orders were argued in tandem with appellants' one brought by. The District Court entered a 2 As we have previously explained. The settlement agreement defines
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI1MTEtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-2511-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Three other appeals from the District Court's allocation and distribution orders were argued in tandem with appellants' one brought by. The District Court entered a 2 As we have previously explained. The settlement agreement defines
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI1MTEtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-2511-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Three other appeals from the District Court's allocation and distribution orders were argued in tandem with appellants' one brought by. The District Court entered a 2 As we have previously explained. The settlement agreement defines
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/041696P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lefkowitz was granted a certificate of appealability on two issues: 1. Most if not all of those additional issues were procedurally defaulted in Lefkowitz I and Lefkowitz II. We confine our review to the issues on which a certificate of appealability was granted and affirm. 000 for that purpose because he had not shown that he was financially unable to obtain counsel. That he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel suffered from a prejudicial lack of accounting knowledge caused by the court's refusal to approve sufficient funds to acquire the necessary expert assistance. Lefkowitz argued that he was denied due process when a judge of this court limited him to $169. This claim is procedurally defaulted for two reasons. This Sixth Amendment issue 3 could have been but was not raised on direct appeal. Although ineffective assistance claims are usually deferred until post conviction proceedings. They may be raised in the trial court and on direct appeal if the relevant facts have been adequately developed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992349.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 was entered against only one of the defendants Jill Mullineaux. Mullineaux contends that she was entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude that Mullineaux was not entitled to qualified immunity. We find that the award of damages was excessive. Knussman learned that his wife Kimberly was pregnant. Kim's pregnancy was difficult and ultimately resulted in her confinement to bed rest in the latter stages prior to delivery. Knussman was informed by the MSP Director of Flight Operations. That there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4108_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was sentenced to 192 months' imprisonment. That sentence was based in part on the classification of Bethel as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1816p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleged in his complaint that he was terminated based on his political affiliation in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. While denying that he was terminated for his political affiliation. Defendants/appellees moved for summary judgment in the district court contending that even if he were. Such a termination was proper under Elrod v. These Commissioners testified that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement for the position of Deputy Director of Marketing and Communications. Concluding that the deposition testimonies of the two Commissioners were not significantly probative on the question of whether political affiliation was 2 an appropriate requirement for the position held by Boyle under Supreme Court and Third Circuit case law. The three member Board was comprised of a Democratic majority. 1 were elected. Boyle was hired by Allegheny County as Deputy Director in its Department of Aviation on January 21. Boyle contends in his suit that he was terminated because he was a registered Democrat and he supported the election campaigns of Democratic candidates for county Commissioner.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992137.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: These appeals were consolidated for oral argument pursuant to U.S. They were given lower annual evaluations and correspondingly lower annual raises from 1994 to 1998. Were denied other professional opportunities incident to their employment at VSU.1 The cases were consolidated by the district court for discovery and trial. Their claims are not a part of this appeal. 2 Farley was named as a defendant in Saleh's case only. Epps was named as a defendant in Mbagwu's case only. Saleh's discrimination and retaliation claims against Demers were presented to the jury and a verdict was returned in Demers' favor. 1 SALEH v. The district court determined that the underlying factual allegations were subject to Virginia's two year statute of limitations. The district court found that evidence respecting the time barred allegations was relevant to prove discriminatory intent as to the claims surviving summary judgment. The matter was tried before a jury.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3352.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending the warrant that authorized the search was improper. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Was misleading. He therefore claims the warrant authorizing the search of his home was not supported by probable cause and evidence seized during that search must be suppressed. Light averred there was probable cause to believe Morin possessed and was distributing methamphetamine from his home. Arguing the warrant authorizing the search of his residence was not supported by probable cause. Morin argues the warrant authorizing the search of his residence was not supported by probable cause because the affidavit supporting the warrant contained material omissions and misleading statements. We accept the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous and review questions of law de novo. Whether a warrant is supported by probable cause is a question of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/00-10312.man.html">SANDERLIN V. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA (3/8/2001, NO. 00-10312)<BR></A><BR>
The district court dismissed the case because it found that the Tribe was entitled to the sovereign immunity accorded Native American tribes. Additionally that the Tribe waived whatever immunity it may have had by accepting federal funds.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/11/024105P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Putman was hired by Unity's predecessor in 1986. Heitzman criticized aspects of Putman's job performance and said that Putman was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA61E3A3117962E788256FB0005932C6/$file/0217440.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2005 is amended to include Judge Fernandez's concurring and dissenting opinion. Arguing that Andrews was not entitled to proceed IFP under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/00-10312.man.html">SANDERLIN V. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA (3/8/2001, NO. 00-10312)<BR></A><BR>
The district court dismissed the case because it found that the Tribe was entitled to the sovereign immunity accorded Native American tribes. Additionally that the Tribe waived whatever immunity it may have had by accepting federal funds.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1839CBC4CB3521588256AD1005BB5F3/$file/9855853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Regula contends that the Delta Plan should have accorded deference to the opinions of his treating physicians and considered vocational evidence in making its benefits determination. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a determination as to whether the Delta Plan may have been acting under a conflict of interest. Thus whether the court should have applied a less deferential standard of review to the Plan's decision to discontinue Regula's benefits. I. The Delta Plan is a non contributory employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/492B9ACB7285421C8825725F005393DD/$file/0530456.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm because the initial encounter between Defendant and the police was consensual or. Was supported by reasonable suspicion. Because his consent to search was voluntary. 162 UNITED STATES v. None of which is clearly erroneous and all of which are supported by evidence in the record.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-14134.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. LISS (9/21/2001, NO. 00-14134)<BR></A><BR>
Was a Florida laboratory that conducted blood and urine testing. The TRO agreements purportedly allowed the doctors to authorize lab work for an individual if his or her own doctor was not available to do so. The TRO agreements served to disguise the kickbacks that were given in return for the patient referrals.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7133.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Louis Harold Norton appeals from eight separate orders granting summary judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action arising out of his alleged mistreatment while he was incarcerated in the Love County jail in Marietta. He contends that there were material facts in dispute that precluded summary judgment. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> summary judgment with respect to the City of Marietta. I. Background Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Love County jail from September 2002 to March 2003. Because his excessive force claims stemmed from (1) Plaintiff does not appeal the district court's order granting the Board of Commissioner's motion for summary judgment. <hr> incidents that occurred while he was an inmate. That motion was followed on September 17. While the summary judgment motions were pending. Defendants objected to plaintiff's inclusion in the proposed pre trial order of any allegations or claims that were not in the Amended Complaint. The district (2) James Diggs was subsequently dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation. <hr> court ordered the parties to revise and resubmit the proposed pre trial order by October 28.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0454p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While he was still working in the coal mines. The claim was finally denied The Honorable Gerald E. No. 01 3111 in 1981 because Flynn failed to prove that he was totally disabled due to the pulmonary ailment pneumoconiosis. Responsibility for payment would have been assumed by the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991055.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nottoway County contends that its decision to deny the permit was indeed supported by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8747A5B972AEE1F882572D8000203FF/$file/0456353.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: For nearly ninety years it has been clearly established that aliens who seek exemption from compulsory military service the draft based on alienage will be forever barred from becoming United States citizens. We are asked to decide whether this bar to citizenship applies to an alien who voluntarily enlisted in the United States Navy. Was honorably discharged. While ground combat operations during Operation Desert Storm were underway in Kuwait and Iraq. Gallarde claims to have endured pain on a daily basis and to have begun experiencing numbness in his left leg. He was advised that such a request would be denied. Was advised that he could seek a discharge on the ground that he was an alien. Gallarde's commanding officer exercised the discretion given him by applicable regulations and denied Gallarde's request because the Navy was experiencing a shortage of sailors in Gallarde's occupational specialty. Indicating that he was requesting
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQyNTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4252_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A final order was issued after October 30. Is now called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1282A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brown</U> was on brief. Were on brief and <U>Kirby A. Was on supplemental brief. It held that there was no plain error warranting reversal. <U>See</U> <U>United States</U> v. <U>Kenrick</U>.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F6A731E43C46E2A88256E5A00707CAD/$file/9856842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Two utility workers were terminated after their company learned from its medical review officer. Whom the company believed was a licensed physician. The medical review officer was arrested for impersonating a licensed physician. Once the workers' union learned that the medical review officer was an imposter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellants Lorenza Wilson (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Flynn was indicted for participating in an organization directed by Paul Leisure which was charged with committing several * The HONORABLE JAMES M. Flynn was convicted of racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for racketeering. Forty five years concurrently on the explosives count. were affirmed. That on the explosives count was reversed because of insufficient evidence of interstate transportation. Flynn argued that his due process rights were violated by errors in the jury instructions. That he was denied effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. That he should have had a hearing in the trial court on whether his counsel had a conflict of interest. That telephone conversations and electronic surveillance were improperly sealed. I. Flynn argues that jury instructions for Count I were unconstitutional because they did not require the jury to make a 2 unanimous finding as to the two predicate acts necessary for a RICO violation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0362p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that the district court erred in finding that he was not a party in interest with respect to all his claims. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0358p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nos. 01 6541/6582 ASCO is engaged in the manufacture of stamped metal products. Stamtec is engaged in the sale. (Chin Fong) is a manufacturer of large scale presses. Stamtec is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chin Fong. Which were to be specially manufactured for ASCO. Chin Fong notified ASCO that it would discontinue manufacturing the presses until and unless a down payment was made. Which was to be applied to the purchase price of the first ASCO press. Chin Fong was able to use many. The district court's disposition of a summary judgment motion is reviewed de novo. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Material facts are those facts defined by the substantive law and that are necessary to apply it. ASCO argues that the district court's determination that Stamtec was entitled to $264. 880 in damages due to lost profits resulting from ASCO's breach was error because the district court did not make any findings as to whether Stamtec actually experienced any lost profits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5039.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Determining facts that increased the maximum sentence to which he was subject under the Guidelines. In violation of the Supreme Court's ruling in (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. (2) imposing special sex offender conditions of supervised release that were not reasonably related to the controlling statutory factors and were too restrictive upon his liberty. We conclude that (1) there is no violation of Blakely or its progeny and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the special offense conditions. Vinson was hired as President of Rockland International in 1999. He replied:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-5315a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Kimberly Carey Williams. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in No. 04 5315. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Congressman Henry J. With her on the briefs was Toby R. With him on the brief were Douglas B. I. No. 04 5315 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson discriminated against Beverly A. No. 045335 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Senator Mark Dayton discriminated against Brad Hanson because of a perceived disability and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. 4 The Office of Representative Johnson and the Office of Senator Dayton (collectively. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/043345P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wallace's immediate supervisor was the Company's city manager for Kansas City. Kjar's immediate supervisor was the regional manager for the midwest region. Mierendorf's immediate supervisor was Stephen Duffy. Wallace was the least senior station manager at the location. Kjar about any of these incidents. 2 The Company's sexual harassment policy stated that an employee could complain to the supervisor of an alleged harasser if the employee was not comfortable complaining directly to his or her own supervisor or directly to the harasser. Mierendorf testified in his deposition that he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></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-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/01-10319.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. CARCIONE (11/13/2001, NO. 01-10319)<BR></A><BR>
Knowing the same to have been stolen. (Count seven).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984613.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Incorporated (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4012.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because Plaintiffs' notice of appeal is untimely. It was filed that day along with a separate judgment. Two recent Supreme Court cases suggesting time prescription rules are sometimes mistakenly regarded as jurisdictional. We conclude the requirement for a timely notice of appeal in a civil case is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2352.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery were on brief for appellant. With whom Luis Edwin Gonz lez Ortiz and O'Neill & Borges were on brief for appellee. SECOMAN was licensed to sell cotton only inside Peru. The joint venture focused on Pima rather than Tanguis cotton because Pima cotton is of higher quality and is generally in greater demand. At the time there was a substantial differential between the price at which Pima cotton could be purchased from cotton producers in Peru and the international market price. Is a subsidiary of the GE Supply Company. Which is in turn a division of the General Electric Company. GE del Caribe is engaged in the sale of General Electric products in the Caribbean. Was the president of GE del Caribe from 1986 to 1993. He was trying to increase his company's sales by penetrating different Latin American markets. Who was the president of Carmel Export Agency. Horizon was informed that there was a seller on the market ready to provide 1. That the seller was willing to pay a commission on the sale. As well as the fact that the international price for Pima cotton was $2.40 per pound.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></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-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0320p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tiffany Skiba was stabbed to death on November 8. That recommendation was adopted by the trial judge. GRANT Frazier a conditional writ of habeas corpus that will result in the vacation of his death sentence unless the state of Ohio No. 01 3122 Frazier v. Bednarski discovered that Skiba was pregnant. Both women believed that Skiba's pregnancy was the result of sexual abuse by Frazier. Frazier was indicted in state court on two counts of rape and two counts involving other sex crimes. Dates for the blood test and the trial were then set by the state criminal court. Skiba was terrified of Frazier. She was visibly disturbed any time that she was in his presence. Skiba confided in one friend her fear that Frazier was going to kill her. His dog was barking and looking excitedly at the back door. Robert Skiba was met with the ghastly sight of his granddaughter's corpse lying in bed. The knife was part of a set belonging to her grandparents. There was blood on the knife. Although it was normally kept closed. The door leading from the basement into the rest of the house was open.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1093p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Factual Background and Procedural History This appeal arises in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case in which the employer is New Jersey Transit Rail Operations. Cars are connected to each other by vestibules. Which are enclosed areas located just outside the passenger seating compartments of each car. Appellant Thomas Fashauer was performing his usual duties as brakeman on a New Jersey Transit train en route from Lindenwold. Signaling the engineer that the platform was clear and that the train could depart. It was raining heavily. The rug on the vestibule floor was soaked when the train arrived at the Atco station on the last run of the day. Fashauer was not holding on to the handrails at the time. He testified that he was in agony at the time. Alleging that his injury was proximately caused by New Jersey Transit's negligence. The case was tried between March 7. New Jersey Transit defended against Fashauer's claims by presenting evidence that the seals were not defective. The slippery condition was purely the result of the rainy weather.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1305.html">SKF USA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/012180.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a petition for review of a final administrative order of removal issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service under Section 238(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051826np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm in part. 1 are as follows. She was In evaluating the evidence in the context of a summary judgment motion. Clegg was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021479P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fenney was involved in a tragic accident. On call engineers are guaranteed at least an eighthour rest period. Dakota's contract with its union requires that Dakota notify the oncall engineers at least one and one half hours before they are to arrive at work. Several of Dakota's employees received a call that was earlier than the minimum one and one half hours required.1 Employees who needed this advance or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7AEC822DF044ED9B88256A8F005813E4/$file/9956682.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because certain of the prosecutors' acts were not done in their role as advocates. They are not shielded by absolute immunity. Milstein is a criminal defense attorney. Who was tried for two counts of homicide. Millward was acquitted of one count. A defense witness in the Millward trial who was then serving a California penal sentence. Mischaracterize the `evidence' against plaintiff during grand jury proceedings where said defendants . . . posed as `advisors' when in reality [they] were complaining witnesses.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/04-7203a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Christopher Landau. Jr. were on the brief of amici curiae Dow Jones & Company. With him on the brief was Louis K. The issue on appeal is whether undisputed facts prove that Representative James A. At the time of the conversation Gingrich was the subject of an investigation by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Representative Boehner was chairman of the 3 House Republican Conference. Representative Boehner was driving through Florida when he joined the conference call. The tape was forwarded to Thurman's Washington office. Representative McDermott was the ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee. The letter stated: Enclosed in the envelope you will find a tape of a conversation heard December 21. The call was a conference call heard over a scanner. We felt the information included were of importance to the committee. We were advised by her to turn the tape directly over to you. We also understand that we will be granted immunity. We pray that committee will consider our sincerity in placing it in your hands.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0160p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant James Smithers was convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/10/001443U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Williams's motions were not timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure The Honorable Stephen M.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/001563P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It appears from the record that Arnold's prosecution of the case was hindered by his distance from Missouri and his inability to obtain the assistance of counsel. II We are required to ascertain the existence of jurisdiction. It is our obligation to notice jurisdictional infirmities. The first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction. . . . . [t]his question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself. Even when not otherwise 1 The judgment was formally entered into the docket on December 6. This requirement is jurisdictional in character. Although Arnold's notice of appeal was filed long after the thirty day period had elapsed. Defendants argue that Arnold may not avail himself of these tolling provisions because his motions were filed outside the ten day window specified in Rule 4(a)(4)(A). The judgment was not entered. Is critical in ascertaining the timeliness of an appeal. Arnold's motion was still filed late: eleven days after the court entered judgment.2 Arnold contends that his post judgment motion was delivered to the district court clerk on December 20.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5045.html">NVT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>John R. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David M. Cl.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A70733AC99B79DDE8825715300588D9D/$file/0510033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the sentence was unreasonable because it was imposed to provide
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/01-10319.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. CARCIONE (11/13/2001, NO. 01-10319)<BR></A><BR>
Knowing the same to have been stolen. (Count seven).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-1162.htm">03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robert Glen Coe appeals the denial of habeas relief regarding the Tennessee state courts' determination that he is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The trial court determined that Coe was entitled to a hearing on this issue because he had satisfied a threshold showing that there existed a genuine disputed issue regarding his competency to be executed. The hearing was held from January 24 to January 28. 2000 that Coe is competent to be executed. Coe filed in federal district court an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Tennessee courts' determination that he is competent for execution under Ford. Further briefing and an appellate oral argument are not necessary. Wainwright This circuit has never been presented with the opportunity to examine the adequacy of a state's procedures to determine whether a death row prisoner is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from executing a prisoner who is insane. Justice Powell concluded that prisoners will be considered insane for the purposes of competency to be executed when they
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044302p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the BIA's en banc decision and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1968 when he was only 11 years old. He was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in state court in New Jersey. For which he was sentenced to a period of incarceration of three and one half years. An Immigration Judge found him removable and denied his application for section 212(c) hardship relief.1 The IJ Discretionary withholding of removal under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994) is known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974750.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the provision is unconstitutional. The district court erred in suppressing Dickerson's voluntary confession on the grounds that it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda. Dickerson was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 371 (West Supp. 1998). Although the district court specifically found that Dickerson's confession was voluntary for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. It nevertheless suppressed the confession because it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda.1 In ruling on the admissibility of Dickerson's confession. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/94-3560.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ALRED (6/30/1998, NO. 94-3560)<BR></A><BR>
Where it was sold. The principal source for obtaining Mexican marijuana was defendant appellant Irma Alred. Who was Irma Calderon in the mid 1980's when the conspiracy began. After delivering approximately 300 pounds of marijuana to coconspirator Charles Douglas Mixon in Holmes County and remaining there until it was sold. Numerous shipments intercepted through traffic stops by law enforcement agents were destined for her. The marijuana was concealed in an extra propane gas tank on trucks traveling from Texas to Holmes County. Three codefendants went to trial.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6021.htm">98-6021 -- ROBEDEAUX V. GIBSON -- 07/08/1999<BR></A><BR>
Petitioner James Glenn Robedeaux was convicted of first degree murder in Oklahoma County District Court for the death of Nancy McKinney. That relief was denied by both the trial court and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. <u>See</u> <u>Robedeaux v. A piece of her arm and hand were found several months later scattered over three counties in central Oklahoma. The jury concluded that Robedeaux was a continuing threat to society. That the murder was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/3422efc89dbc107988256c380004c2ee/$FILE/0015223.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs contend it was error for the district court to entertain United's motions for forum non conveniens because the Warsaw Convention. The judgments of the district court dismissing these actions on the ground of forum non conveniens are reversed. PROCEDURAL HISTORY These related cases were brought by passengers on United Air Lines Flight 826. Which was scheduled to fly from Tokyo. We have no occasion to decide whether state courts may apply their own doctrines of forum non conveniens to actions arising under the Warsaw Convention. 1 HOSAKA v. In some cases family members who were not passengers on the flight. We have jurisdiction over these appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse. If the plain text is ambiguous. All 18 cases are consolidated for the purposes of this appeal. 2 14282 HOSAKA v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5171a.html">BROWN & WILLIAMSON V. WAXMAN HENRY A.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></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-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1999.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tocci and Glovsky & Associates were on brief. Was on brief. Circuit Judge. is currently serving two concurrent. Naming as respondents the superintendent of the state correctional facility where he is confined. These appeals have their genesis in events that occurred over a quarter century ago. Is available in Commonwealth v. These consecutive sentences were to be served
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1508.html">B.BRAUN MED. INC. V. ABBOT LAB & NP MED<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-30481-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Scroggins was sentenced to life imprisonment We vacate Scroggins's and five years of supervised release. sentence and remand to the district court for further proceedings as explained below. Was arrested in March 2001 for drug trafficking. days after Buchanan's arrest. Claiming that he was doing this to assist Buchanan. was already under investigation. Scroggins later told Green that he had set up a ten kilogram cocaine and 200 pound marihuana deal with Sosa thirty days before even speaking with Green and that this was going to be his last deal and that it was going to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1253a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the briefs were David E. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Stevenson were on the brief for intervenor Western New York Public Broadcasting Association. Identifying such channels with an asterisk in what is now called the Table of Allotments. Which was reserved for noncommercial educational use. Which was unreserved. Which it claimed was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062760P.pdf">N:\DOCS\MELISSA\06-2760.CHRISTENSEN V. TITAN.FINAL OPINION2.WPD<BR></A><BR>
Christensen was 58 1/2 years old and went on short term disability leave to have knee replacement surgery. Considered Christensen his most qualified and experienced supervisor and told Christensen that he would have his job when he returned from the disability leave. While Christensen was still on disability leave. All Quintak employees who wanted to work at Titan were required to submit applications. Warren told Christensen that while everyone was required to fill out an application. Christensen was on his list of people who were needed to run the operation. Christensen submitted an application while he was still on disability leave and kept in contact with Warren. Warren assured Christensen that he would have his job as third shift supervisor whenever the doctor allowed him to return to work. Who told Christensen that he was not conducting any more interviews and that Christensen needed to have Warren schedule him for an interview with Luthin. Luthin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov96/94-3423.opa.html">VENN V. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS. CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Venn v. It is now before us for the second time. The issues presented on appeal are: (1) whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee can assert a bad faith claim against an insurer when the underlying cause of action accrued after the named insured was discharged in bankruptcy. (2) if such a claim is found to be cognizable. What is the measure of recovery. (3) whether the bankruptcy trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest. The measure of recovery is the amount of the judgment in excess of policy limits. The trustee is not entitled to prejudgment interest. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The general factual background for this case is described in detail in <i>Camp v. Is the insurer of Dr. On several occasions both before and after Kimbell's petition was filed. Was bankrupt and could not be held personally liable for the excess judgment. Such that the named insured was never personally liable for any amount of the judgment. The case was set for trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-5022a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the briefs was David G. With him on the brief were S. The scope of this
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200103/00-5128a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Michael Tankersley. With her on the brief were Wilma A. With her on the brief were Adam C. Asserted that the remaining submissions were protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of FOIA. Asserting that the disputed documents were subject to disclosure under FOIA. Therefore were protected as such from disclosure. The agency's Informa tion Request was not enforceable. The submissions cannot be considered mandatory even if the parties reasonably believed the Information Re quests were mandatory at the time of submission. Private party submis sions are entitled to the same protection from disclosure as voluntary submissions. The trial court appeared to indicate that the Center was required to prove that intervenor defendants have previously released identical information. This is not a correct statement of the law. The companies were directed to respond by February 17. There are now 33 items of information remaining in dispute. The District Court determined that NHTSA did not have to disclose any of the 33 items of information.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/958B0BDE14EF6F2988256C36008195E2/$file/9899033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury was instructed to determine whether the murder with which Valerio was charged
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94latorre.html">LATORRE V. CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE INS. LATORRE V. THE APPLICATION CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING PROVISION: "IF A PREMIUM IS PAID WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE COMPANY'S LIABILITY IS STATED IN A CONDITIONAL ADVANCE PREMIUM RECEIPT.". THE RECEIPT PROVIDED THAT COVERAGE WOULD BEGIN "AT THE LATER OF THE COMPLETION OF THE APPLICATION PART I AND PART II INCLUDING THE COMPLETION OF ANY PHYSICAL EXAMINATION REQUIRED WHEN THE PART II IS FIRST COMPLETED.". THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT NEITHER PARTY CONTENDED THAT MARIO LATORRE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. THE DISTRICT COURT NOTED THAT ITS FINDING WAS CONSISTENT WITH NEW YORK LAW REQUIRING THAT THE APPLICATION. THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT CONNECTICUT MUTUAL WAS BARRED FROM USING HIS ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMISSIONS AS A BASIS FOR CONTESTING THE BENEFICIARY'S CLAIM FOR DEATH BENEFITS. CONTENTIONS CONNECTICUT MUTUAL CONTENDS THAT THE TWO YEAR INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE BECAME EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE OF ISSUE STATED IN THE FORMAL POLICY RATHER THAN THE DATE THE APPLICATION FOR THE POLICY WAS COMPLETED AND THE CONDITIONAL RECEIPT ISSUED. THE BENEFICIARY CONTENDS THAT THE INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE BECAME EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE MARIO LATORRE RECEIVED THE CONDITIONAL ADVANCE PREMIUM RECEIPT."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/98-7093b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Thomas C. With him on the brief was Gaela K. We have heretofore vacat ed the decision insofar as it was based on invalidity. Analysis Except insofar as it is necessary to make our application of the law understandable. We will not rehash the facts underly ing this controversy as they are set forth in full in Keefe Co. v. That those that were due within three years next preceding its filing of this 1 Judge Wald was on the original panel but had left the court by the time this matter was decided and therefore did not participate in this decision. action were still viable. It is well established that we treat the District of Columbia as a state for purposes of the Erie Doctrine. That is its Court of Appeals. When parties have entered into a contract in which payment is due on the first of each month. As is generally the case with installment contracts. The controlling question is within the jurisdiction of the court of the District.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTQ0MjBfc28ucGRm/03-4420_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-3045a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was A. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Defendant Michael John son was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. s 924(c)(1). We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Johnson's conviction. They did find an air shaft that was accessible through a window in his bathroom. Hanging on a nail in the air shaft was a plastic bag containing several small packets of crack cocaine and a loaded .357 revolver with an obliterated serial number. Defendant was clad only in his underwear. On the bed were the same clothes Johnson had worn when he pointed the gun at Officer Flynn. In the clothes were over thirty packets of crack cocaine and $700 in cash. Officer Flynn testified at trial that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/952F4B46EF80DF5188256DC200598815/$file/0150376.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Congress was silent whether the elimination of § 212(c) relief applied retroactively to people who were convicted of crimes before 1996. Aliens who committed aggravated felonies were placed in deportation proceedings after being served with an Order to Show Cause. Aliens were placed in removal proceedings after being served with a Notice to Appear. The Supreme Court noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-1273a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Joseph E. With her on the brief were John H. The Project was harmful to the fish. FERC does not dispute that the study will cost Centralia up to $300. FERC has no meaningful hard evidence to prove that the hydroelectric project is harmful to fish. The petition for review is granted. Filed a complaint claiming that the Yelm Project was harming the fishery. Was required to file for a license. Not long after the settlement was signed. The Tribe submit ted a letter to Centralia stating that it did not believe that a tailrace barrier was either necessary or desirable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1637a.html">SBC COMM INC V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/95-2914.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DABBS (2/6/1998, NO. 95-2914)<BR></A><BR>
PST mailed certificates at random to prospective customers declaring that the recipient was eligible to receive one of four allegedly valuable awards. The merchant bank is only entitled to recoup its loss from the business. Lacks sufficient funds or is no longer a functioning enterprise. Studies have shown that telemarketing companies generate a substantially greater risk of charge backs. When the inspector called a third time to tell her that Barnett had discovered the scheme and advised him that factoring was illegal. Susan Dabbs falsely told the inspector that they were not violating the law and instructed the inspector to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/98-1058a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were James V. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Association of American Railroads. With him on the brief were Henri F. Krebs were on the brief for intervenors. III were on the brief for amicus curiae Western Coal Traffic League. That is because Union Pacific Railroad Company is a so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0177p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Her employer's plan is subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA). To deny long term disability benefits to Cooper was arbitrary and capricious. She was covered by both short term and long term disability insurance plans administered by LINA. Only the long term disability plan (the Plan) is presently at issue. The Plan defines the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-3120a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the appellee. For the first time on appeal Drew argues that section 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under the Second and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We further conclude that the district court properly applied the Guidelines' cross reference provisions and that Drew's due process challenge to his conviction is meritless. Family counseling was also ordered and was scheduled to begin on November 19. Everyone was turning their back on him and he was contemplating suicide. While she was on the telephone with the emergency dispatcher.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU4NzZfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5876_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Winners have yet to be declared in an election for two seats in the Albany County. Along with two candidates who have since dropped out of the case. The district court should have dismissed the voters' suit for lack of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 subject matter jurisdiction in light of earlier state court litigation over the absentee ballots. This court should vacate the district court's preliminary injunction because the voters have not sufficiently established that their constitutional claim is likely to succeed. Although we are unpersuaded by the Board's arguments. I. BACKGROUND This appeal is the latest installment in litigation that began in 2003 over elections for the Albany County Legislature. By then it was too late to hold the November 2003 election in accordance with the substitute plan. Which would have required voters to file a new request for such ballots. The election was close: according to the complaint. All four candidates petitioned the New York Supreme Court in Albany County to have various absentee ballots invalidated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU4MjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5824-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Three appeals have been consolidated in this case. A trial against defendant Robert Rosenstock and an inquest to fix damages against Briggs were scheduled to begin in August 1997. Briggs was a publicly held auto leasing company incorporated in New York. Robert Genser (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9334DEB6F3900ED988256E5A00707C36/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is further amended as follows: Slip op. How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. 10296 The Ex Post Facto Clause expresses our commitment to constrain the manner in which legislatures can address intense fears of the type evoked by the return to the community of convicted sex offenders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/97-7178a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was John M. With him on the briefs was Gary H. Ltd. and Novecon Management Compa ny (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/98-5161a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Wilma A. With her on the brief was Brian Wolfman. Powell was on the brief for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Public Citizen argued that the documents could not be withheld under that exemption and that in any event disclosure was required under 21 U.S.C. s 355(l). Human) tests showing that the drug is safe and effective. Arguing that although a search of its database identified 230 INDs for which the agency had received safety reports and which were either withdrawn. It could not without an unduly burdensome manual search of each file determine which of these were discontinued
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/053814P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 1 This is a diversity based insurance coverage dispute that arose out of a fatal automobile collision at a railroad crossing in Lafeyette County. Concluding that the railroad was not an additional insured under the policies that Ohio Casualty had issued to TriState Traffic Control. Tri State was hired to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0NzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5473-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree that subject matter jurisdiction exists and that the malpractice claims were properly dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Both firms had served as class counsel in a 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 separate earlier securities class action and it is the firms' conduct in litigating the securities action that is now alleged by the plaintiffs to have constituted malpractice. The district court dismissed the malpractice complaint for failure to state a claim after determining that defendants' actions were reasonable as a matter of law. (2) diversity jurisdiction if non diverse plaintiffs are dismissed as unnecessary parties. While we are querulous as to the first two contentions. The first of several class action complaints were filed in federal courts against the Bennett Funding Group (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-4061.htm">98-4061 -- U.S. V. SWAPP -- 10/29/1999<BR></A><BR>
These cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Addam W. We companion these two appeals for disposition because they are based on similar facts and raise similar issues. Appellants have not met this standard because they have not shown that the issues they raised
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0107p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Page 2 BACKGROUND This Tennessee breach of contract suit was previously before this Court. The overall goal of the TRICARE program is to improve the quality. One aspect of the new TRICARE program was the establishment of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQxMDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4103-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Original Packaging Weight Watchers is a leading provider of weight loss products and services. It has offered a diet plan known as the Points or Winning Points plan in which foods are given a point value based on the number of calories and grams of fat and fiber they contain. Weight Watchers members are assigned a points range principally based on their body weight and may eat what they choose so long as the total point value of the food they eat throughout the day does not exceed their assigned ranges. Defendant Luigino's Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90A6027D7FCE4E0C8825734C0057DA4E/$file/0535627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery. I A McKenzie and PeaceHealth are the only two providers of hospital care in Lane County. That the relevant market in this case is the market for primary and secondary acute care hospital services in Lane County. Primary and secondary acute care hospital services are common medical services like setting a broken bone and performing a tonsillectomy. McKenzie's sole endeavor is McKenzie Willamette Hospital. The largest of PeaceHealth's three facilities is Sacred Heart Hospital. It is necessary to appreciate the structure of the market in which this case arises. The market for hospital services and medical care is complex. Insurers are usually commercial health insurance companies that seek to buy medical services from hospitals on the best terms possible. The price agreed upon is often referred to as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/054474P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\9-7\05-4474 ARRALEH V. COUNTY OF RAMSEY OPN 8.31.WPD<BR></A><BR>
I. Background Workforce Solutions (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-1414.htm">98-1414 -- U.S. V. AHLENIUS -- 10/19/1999<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-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0032n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the matter was fully briefed on appeal. Where the shed was located. There was also a swing set. Merrell was indicted by a federal grand jury on several counts. The district court determined that Merrell's sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines was 360 months to life. Merrell was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment. The 240 month sentence was the maximum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Merrell was again sentenced to 240 months. Part of the offense level was a 6 level enhancement to Merrell's guideline under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) for creating a substantial risk of harm to a minor. Standard of Review 2 This Court will review the first issue de novo and the second issue for reasonableness. Legal conclusions regarding application of the Sentencing Guidelines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ5MjUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4925-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant appellant contends that the district court erred because (1) the contract at issue was fraudulently induced. (2) the contract is in violation of Disciplinary Rule 2 107 of New York's Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility. The Agreement is enforceable pursuant to New York contract law. Ballow and Logan negotiated terms that were memorialized in the Agreement. One of these grounds was its conclusion that because the Agreement is a court order. It is not subject to Logan's rescission claim. Because we conclude that Logan's delay precludes him from asserting rescission of the Agreement and that the Agreement is enforceable as a matter of New York contract law. The transfer motion was granted and The jury deadlocked. The Logan the case was tried in February 2002. case thereafter was settled for $2. Logan claimed that the stipulation was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations. Which provides that [a] lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not a partner in or associate of the lawyer's law firm.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-4356.man.html">GROSSFELD V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N (3/27/1998, NO. 96-4356)<BR></A><BR>
The Double Jeopardy challenge is the only issue presented by appellants in this appeal.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CDD71A36DF1ECEE88256AE8007F46A7/$file/0010570.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that because his prior theft offense sentence was suspended. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Echavarria was convicted of the felony offense of theft. His sentence was later suspended. He 14752 was placed on probation not to exceed 36 months. Because Echavarria is not a citizen of the United States. He was detained by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-5218.htm">98-5218 -- U.S. V. HUGHES -- 09/14/1999<BR></A><BR>
Thus that their prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. Who is an attorney. Was a longtime business associate of the late Thomas Rhoades.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-1005a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Steele was on the briefs. General Counsel at the time the brief was file. Were on the brief. Four days after the notices were filed. In which we held that the FCC's denial of an application for a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyMzctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3237-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether defendants were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMxMzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3139-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Billy Yung and his father Yung Yau are residents and citizens of Hong Kong who. The Defendants Defendant ITNG is a Delaware corporation with offices in New York. ITNG's shares were publicly listed and traded on the securities markets of the United States. Was the president and a director of ITNG. Was then the chairman of the board and a director of ITNG. ITNG was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dawson Science Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-1263a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McClelland were on the briefs. Were on the brief. The Commission designed a scheme intended to ensure that any system not facing such competition would nevertheless charge approximately the same rates as if it were in a competitive market. A system operator's initial permitted rate either was its rate in effect on September 30. Or was calculated in accordance with certain FCC formulas and worksheets with out reference to rates in effect on September 30. One of the cable operators' complaints in that case (and the only one relevant to Time Warner's instant petition) was that the FCC unreasonably did not allow
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMxMzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3139-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Billy Yung and his father Yung Yau are residents and citizens of Hong Kong who. The Defendants Defendant ITNG is a Delaware corporation with offices in New York. ITNG's shares were publicly listed and traded on the securities markets of the United States. Was the president and a director of ITNG. Was then the chairman of the board and a director of ITNG. ITNG was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dawson Science Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0912n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The only existing certificate of title was issued by the Texas Department of Transportation. That is the only matter before us in this appeal. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The facts underlying the action are not in dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053306P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Keith Buchheit was one of three men charged with beating another man to death. After one of his co defendants was convicted and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment. He was not aware of a statute that required persons convicted of certain felonies. Buchheit and his father that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8AAFACBAF94073E988256A07006173DE/$file/9699020.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lambright and co defendant Robert Douglas Smith were convicted of first degree murder. Although there were signs at the time that Lambright suffered from a mental illness. The attorney promised the court that he had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1429.html">MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY V. CHEMIQUE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199710/96-1253b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Franklin were on the briefs. Lobner were on the briefs. Were on the brief. I. Airports are required by statute to charge aeronautical users reasonable fees.1 Section 511 of the Airports and Airways Improvements Act. Requires an airport that accepts federal grant money (or land) to assure that the airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimina tion. Or guidelines establishing ... the standards or guidelines that shall be used by the Secretary in determining under this section whether an airport fee is reasonable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/996333.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. 1999*). the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED Although the district court's judgment and order is marked as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIyNDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2240-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stating that if MBCC is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994814.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Boldens were indicted in December of 1997 by a grand jury in Asheville. A superseding indictment was returned in October of 1998.1 The indictment alleged that. On which the Boldens were tried. This fraud scheme was carried out through their operation of Emerald Health CareTaylorsville (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIyMzktY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2239-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That he is guilty of two specific. He claims the information's two conspiracy charges are multiplicitous and his plea to these two charges violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The rights afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause are personal and can be waived by a defendant.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-2858.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Securities Grp. 1980 United States Court of Appeals. BACKGROUND A. Facts The appellants are former limited partners in three New York limited partnerships: The Securities Group (
|
|
UNITED STATES V. ZINN (2/14/2003, NO. 02-10782)
Zinn pled guilty to possessing child pornography and was sentenced to imprisonment to be followed by a period of supervised release. Or are employed. Carry on a vocation or are a student as directed by your probation officer. The probation officer will provide State officials with all information required under Florida Sexual Predators and Sexual Offender Notification and Registration Statutes and [may] direct you to report to these agencies personally for required additional processing such as photographic. Fingerprinting and DNA collection.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Butler's principal contention is that his money laundering convictions cannot stand because they are based on the very same transactions that form the basis for his bankruptcy fraud conviction. Because these funds became
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is an action brought by the Plaintiff Appellant Joseph Bielefeld pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Appellees Janet Haines. The Plaintiff was indicted in the Jefferson County. The Plaintiff was subsequently acquitted in a bench trial of the alleged crime and he now brings claims collectively under Title VII. Two issues are presented on appeal: (1) Did the district court properly dismiss the slander claims because they were barred by the statute of limitations? (2) Did the district court properly grant summary judgment to Defendants on the malicious prosecution claim?1 Because our answer to both questions is yes. That summary judgment was wrongly granted because
|
|
98-4049 -- MCCANN V. ROSQUIST -- 08/03/1999
Is not a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff appellant Norex Petroleum Limited (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
David Eddleman was convicted of second degree murder and a firearm offense in a Michigan state court. Concluding that the trial court erred in admitting his coerced confession but that the error was harmless. We should ask on collateral review whether the state court's harmless error decision was contrary to. The clearly established federal rule that a trial error is harmless only if it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We hold that the Michigan Court of Appeals's harmless error determination was an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's decisions in Chapman v. Georgescu was seated in a car parked near the corner of Kirkland and Trenton Streets in western Detroit. The government argued that Eddleman was a member of the Insane Spanish Cobras. Testified that he was a member of the Insane Spanish Cobras street gang in October 1996 and that Garcia was the gang's leader. Who was driving. Who was in the back seat. Who was lying across the back seat after passing out due to alcohol consumption.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 1 counsel's name is corrected to read
|
|
UNITED STATES V. ABBELL (11/7/2001, NO. 99-12058)
Circuit Judges.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Kentucky were conducting surveillance of Watford. Who was wanted in the State of Illinois on charges of murder and in the Central District of Illinois for violation of federal probation. Watford was also suspected of being involved in drug trafficking and maintaining a storage facility at which he stored between two and three kilograms of cocaine. The Marshals were warned that Watford likely would be armed with a 9mm handgun and wearing a bullet proof vest. They pulled over the yellow Toyota pick up truck in which Watford was riding as a passenger and arrested him without incident. When Hale later left his apartment and was confronted by police. Agents found 28 baggies that were later confirmed to contain 292.6 grams of crack cocaine. 000 in cash and a driver's license displaying Watford's photograph was also present in the apartment. Watford was not immediately charged in that district. Was instead removed to state custody in Illinois to stand trial on the unrelated murder charges. On the day the Indictment was returned.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court found that the University's campus was a nonpublic forum and that all the challenged restrictions on speech were reasonable. I. Gary Bowman is a professing Christian who engages in street preaching about his religious beliefs and convictions as a tenet of his faith. Bowman considers the University a uniquely suitable place to communicate his message because of its close proximity to his residence in Oklahoma and the significant number of students that can be found in outdoor areas. 2 The University is the flagship campus of the University of Arkansas System. Bowman is classified as a Non University Entity.2 The Policy places a five day cap per semester per entity on the use of facilities and outdoor space by Non University Entities. A reservation is required regardless of the use that will be made of the space. The Policy further prohibits the use of space by Non University Entities during so called Use of indoor space is governed by individual use policies which are not at issue in this case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
If the assigned coal operator is no longer in business. The Commissioner assigned eighty six retired coal miners to the Jericol Mining Company (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Matthew Wireko petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court challenging the Attorney General's final removal order that required him to be deported from the United States because he was convicted of an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A representation election was held among the warehouse and retail store employees. Robert Orr/Sysco voted against union representation in an election that was conducted by the National Labor Relations Board (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
They maintain that termination of the consent decree was improper under the terms of the statute. That the district court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before terminating the decree. The consent decree provided various forms of injunctive relief and contemplated contin 1 Defendants in this action are various officials associated with the Powhatan Correctional Center. We will refer to Defendants collectively as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
|
|
FARROW V. WEST (2/7/2003, NO. 01-13846)
Farrow was an inmate in the Alabama prison system. West extracted some of Farrow's teeth.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The parties agree that the loss to both banks [TCF and Wells Fargo] is between $30. . . . you are giving up the right to appeal the sentence.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Lines 1 2: the code citation is corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because no specific magic words are necessary to render a sentence reasonable. Davis was sentenced to a 151 month prison term for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Davis was transferred from the Federal Bureau of Prisons to Dismas Charities Community Corrections Center (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Annette Thomas was the municipal court administrator for the City of Beaverton. Because there is insufficient evidence of racial animus. Annette Thomas was hired as the municipal court administrator for the City of Beaverton and placed on a standard six month probationary period for new employees.1 Her job duties included supervising and hiring court clerks. One of whom was Susie Perry. Who was then in charge of the municipal court's personnel matters. After Perry was passed over for a promotion to the position of senior court clerk in 1996 and 1997. Specifically found that Perry was qualified for the senior court clerk position and that the City's reasons for not promoting Perry were pretextual. As Thomas was preparing to recruit applicants for the position. Thomas consequently refused to document incidents involving Perry because she thought it was unfair to Perry and there was nothing substantial to document. Was the most qualified for the position and should be promoted to the position.
|
|
03-1100 -- REALI V. ABBOT -- 02/26/2004
She was charged with first degree murder. Hood's case was improper. Reali's confession statements were materially the same as her immunized testimony. A petitioner is entitled to federal
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND The history of this case is reported in the opinion and order of the District Court. Among the victims were ninety two Austrians. Alleging that the train and tunnel were improperly designed. Plaintiffs asked the District Court to certify this class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).2 A funicular railway is a cable railway ascending a mountain. The
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Flournoy was arrested in Tampa. The order of restitution to the merchants was not authorized. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the VWPA
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Board further found that petitioner's testimony was not credible because he had submitted a fraudulent document in support of his application. Sitting by designation. 1 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 We conclude that the government violated petitioner's right to confidentiality by providing to the Chinese government a document from which it could reasonably infer that petitioner was in the United States seeking asylum. The Board's finding that Lin was not credible is without substantial evidentiary support because its sole basis for the finding is an unreliable report from the United States Consulate in Guangzhou. The petition is GRANTED. The Board's decision is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The IJ found that Lin's story of imprisonment and political persecution was credible and that he qualified for asylum and withholding of removal. Stating that the certificate of release from prison (the
|
|
WE RESOURCES INC V. FERC
|
|
UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ (2/12/2001, NO. 98-5915)
Martinez's appeal raises an issue of first impression in our Circuit: Can a district court exercise equitable jurisdiction over a Rule 41(e) motion filed after criminal proceedings have ended? Our answer is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Dissenting: The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (
|
|
97-6435 -- BRYSON V. WARD -- 08/06/1999
Fourteenth Amendments when it determined he was competent to stand trial. BACKGROUND Bryson first met his co defendant Marilyn Plantz in late 1987 or early 1988 when he was sixteen and she was in her late twenties and married. McKimble was a teenager. McKimble knew that Bryson and Plantz were romantically involved. Plantz was abusive and that she wanted to kill him to obtain life insurance proceeds. Third suggestion was that Bryson and McKimble push Mr. None of these schemes was carried out. On August 17. One of Marilyn Plantz's schemes was carried further but ultimately failed. They were unable to carry out the plan because Mr. Farris was arrested for unrelated reasons. On August 25. McKimble were together. Plantz was beaten so badly. Plantz was insured for approximately $299. Plantz was alive. McKimble said that he had expected to be paid for the murder. Bryson was interviewed by police detectives two times after the murder. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Bryson was found guilty of first degree murder.
|
|
03-7065 -- ALEXANDER V. BARNHART -- 01/30/2004
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Donald E. Alexander appeals from an order of the district court affirming the Commissioner's determination that he is not entitled to Social Security disability benefits. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether her factual findings were supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record and to determine whether she applied the correct legal standards. See Castellano v.
|
|
LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)
Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.
|
|
OIL CHEM & ATOMIC V. NLRB
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Bender is a doctor of internal medicine and has maintained a private practice in Rockville. Bender and other physicians with staff privileges created a coverage group agreement pursuant to which they covered for each other when a member of the group was unavailable. Various strategic decisions of both sides to this case have narrowed the issue on appeal to one: whether Bender's complaint for
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is further amended as follows: Slip op. How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. 10296 The Ex Post Facto Clause expresses our commitment to constrain the manner in which legislatures can address intense fears of the type evoked by the return to the community of convicted sex offenders.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Holding Rocco Morganti (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A published book by defendant Asante Kahari1 that describes the exact counterfeit check scheme for which Kahari was found guilty. One chapter of Kahari's book describes how to execute this very scam. 1 The defendant was born Aaron Fraser. The sole legal issue preserved for appeal is whether the district court committed reversible error in admitting portions of the book's text into evidence in violation of Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). We affirm the judgment of the district court because The Birth of a Criminal was admissible to prove Kahari's intent. Kahari asked Hugg if he could send her some checks because he was moving and did not have a bank account. She told him that she did not have a bank account. Two of the checks were payable to Hugg's mother. Two were payable to Hugg's sister. The total amount of the checks was $38. Hugg testified that she did not know that the checks were counterfeit. Even though Harris knew that he was married to another woman. He was charged with one count of bank fraud.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is the proper test for determining whether a party has prudential standing to bring a false advertising claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. There are approximately 11. Appellant Phoenix is a licensed Burger King franchisee that owns and operates a Burger King franchise in Fort Lauderdale. There are approximately 30. Sitting by designation. 2 * and Burger King have employed a variety of marketing and promotional strategies to attract customers. While the games were still underway. 3 the FBI informed McDonald's that there were problems with the random distribution of its game pieces. Approximately 50 other persons either pleaded guilty or were convicted in connection with the conspiracy. McDonald's promotional games were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We affirm the grant of summary judgment to the creditor because the security interest in the debtors' affixed mobile home was perfected properly under an amendment to the MHCA. Because the amendment clarified existing law and was not a new law. Especially when the security interests extended to the real property to which the mobile homes were affixed. Kroskie was a bankruptcy adversary proceeding in which a Chapter 7 trustee avoided a security interest in a mobile home by challenging the security interest as unperfected under Michigan law. The Sixth Circuit held that the Kroskie security interest was avoidable. Security interests recorded as traditional mortgage liens were unperfected and were therefore subordinated in bankruptcy cases to other claims against the estate. Potential lenders could not detect existing security interests in affixed mobile homes by title searches because the security interests were no longer recorded as traditional mortgages. The Michigan legislature also included a statement of intent in the Enacting Section of the amendment: It is the intent of this legislature that a security interest or lien on a mobile home affixed to real property may be perfected in the manner provided under law for No. 05 1075 In re Oswalt.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
An undischarged term of imprisonment he was serving as a result of a prior federal conviction. 1 the district court was required to add together the drug weights from the instant offense and the drug weights from the offense for which he was serving an undischarged prison term in order to create a hypothetical combined guideline range that would have applied if he had been sentenced for both drug crimes simultaneously. Mosley further asserts that the district court was required to sentence him within that combined range. We hold that the district court was not required to use Mosley's suggested method in making its decision to impose a concurrent. Timothy Mosley was part of a conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in Culpeper County. Mosley pleaded guilty and was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Mosley was still serving a sentence of 121 months that the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. 2 Mosley's sentencing range was from seventy to eighty seven months.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issue before this Court is the interpretation of the arbitration clause in a contract between these two companies. I. Higley is a primary contractor on a project with the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. These provisions of the Subcontract were 1 No. 05 3393 Albert M. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal based on 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1). We have previously noted the large number of cases from the Supreme Court encouraging arbitration in a wide variety of contexts and emphasizing the federal policy in favor of arbitration. The federal policy in favor of arbitration is not an absolute one. Arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Rand employees working at Honeywell were required to have a badge for security purposes. A red badge indicated that the individual was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The fines imposed by the citations were not paid. Bench warrants for Luckes's arrest were subsequently issued on June 15. Luckes's driver's license was suspended on January 12. Luckes was again stopped by the Minnesota State Patrol and cited for driving with a suspended license. Luckes arrived at the ADC at approximately 7:30 a.m. and was placed in a holding cell.3 Prior to being placed in the cell. He was told by an officer that he had
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is the proper reach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Wallace was the only transporter in the surgery department on the evening shift. Dee Ann Wilcox was Wallace's evening shift supervisor. Supervised Wilcox and was in charge of the surgery department. Wallace had a minor confrontation with a male doctor on at least one occasion when Wallace felt the doctor was transporting a patient too quickly. Wallace believed Sparks was discriminating against him based on his gender. His EEOC complaint resulted in a mediated settlement that was finalized in September 2002. Were all irritated by Wallace's EEOC complaint because they felt Wallace's charges of discrimination were baseless. They agreed to the settlement because its requirements were innocuous. She also allegedly told him
|
|
02-1022 -- ASPEN ORTHOPAEDICS AND SPORTS MEDICINE V. ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT -- 12/22/2003
Do we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals from the denial of immunity from suit when state law creates the immunity? Which is a governmental entity of the State of Colorado. Which is privately owned by Orthopedic Associates and Aspen Emergency Medicine. Was the sole provider of orthopedic services in Aspen prior to the Plaintiffs' arrival. Count XIII alleges that the Hospital was negligent in not enforcing its patient referral policy. Count XVI alleges the Hospital was negligent in subjecting Doctors Brazina and Nadler to an overly burdensome credentialing process. Which was referred to a magistrate judge. It was immune from suit pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Lynn Soreide is the former wife of Arne Soreide. Arne Soreide was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. The criminal forfeiture statutes provide for forfeiture of substitute assets of the defendant if the property involved in or traceable to the crime is not available for forfeiture. 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). 341 (4th Cir. 2000). 3 1 Lynn Soreide was not implicated in Arne Soreide's criminal activity. Lynn Soreide was not employed but held the title of president of Accutel. Her only income was an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We agree that the ordinance is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the district court. Minors may participate in any activity during curfew hours if they are accompanied by a parent. The ordinance exempts minors who are engaged in interstate travel. Are on the sidewalk abutting their parents' residence. Or are involved in an emergency. The ordinance does not affect minors who are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
O'Keefe required visitors to identify themselves and submit
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Kelly DePetris shot and killed her husband Dana DePetris while he was asleep in bed. She claimed
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Noe was tried jointly with Timothy Schultz. Who was found by the jury to be guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. One such individual was Jessica Taft. Noe was in and out of jail for various offenses until August of 2001. Despite posted notice that phone calls were subject to monitoring. Noe contends that the district court erred by admitting evidence that he was a member of a white supremacist gang and by denying his motion to sever his trial from that of Schultz. Placek telephoned Noe and reassured him that despite the plea agreement she was
|
|
METAULLICS SYSTEMS V. COOPER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(2) the finding of liability was supported by the record. Dust was blowing from and around the bags. Reasoning that the complaint was filed more than one year from the violations and was not eligible for a waiver under 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d)(1). Was ambiguous and deferred to the EPA's interpretation. Determined that there was substantial evidence supporting the EAB's decision. That the penalty imposed was not an abuse of discretion. Administrative Jurisdiction Lyon County first claims that the EPA did not have the jurisdiction to bring an administrative action. The court will defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering if the statute is ambiguous. Or the interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of the statute. Lyon County argues that the EPA is not due Chevron deference when it is interpreting the question of its own jurisdiction. 1004 05 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that Chevron would apply to jurisdictional question but determining that the statute was clear).2 Lyon County also argues that the interpretation advocated by the EPA is a result of an informal process and not due full Chevron deference.
|
|
NIPPON CREDIT BANK, LTD V. MATTHEWS (5/15/2002, NO. 98-8639)
BACKGROUND
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Harter's attorney conceded at oral argument that the message was left on the Harters' home answering machine. Claimed the contents of the message was unknown because their teenager inadvertently erased it. The court found the Department's AWG was constitutional and the Department
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Inmates who had committed specified crimes were excluded from participation in the program. It did not address specifically whether inmates excluded from participation in the supervised furlough program of § 24 13 710 were also excluded from participation in the mandatory furlough program of § 24 13 720. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the exclusions contained in § 24 13 1 The furlough program was amended in 1983 to impose additional restrictions on eligibility for participation. Subsequent amendments have occurred that are not material to this litigation. See id. 2 710 did not apply to inmates entitled to mandatory release on furlough under § 24 13 720 as that statute was originally enacted. 246 (S.C. 1993) (holding
|
|
02-3410 -- CHAFFIN V. KANSAS STATE FAIR BOARD -- 10/28/2003
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Lines 3 4 the phrase is corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: In the Spring of 2003 Mike Price was head coach of the University of Alabama's Crimson Tide football team. The head coach at a major university is a powerful figure. Who are in highest places. Have the most power . . . have the least liberty. Because they are most observed.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Ithaca is a large textile manufacturing company. Both tests were negative. Is the son of Nicholas J.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Lee was injured when he stepped onto a moving conveyor belt installed by Siemens as he attempted to cross over the conveyor on an improvised stairway. * The Honorable James G. Lee argues on appeal that summary judgment was improper as to Siemens because Siemens breached its duty of care when it failed to adequately warn Lee and other employees that the conveyor was moving. Lee argues that summary judgment was improper because the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act did not immunize UPS from tort liability and because UPS breached its duty to Lee when it ignored complaints about the danger of crossing over the Siemens conveyor. Delta was a subcontractor for VI. Which are cabinets that contain motors to control the conveyors. Other Delta employees also agreed that crossing the conveyor was the only convenient way to leave the site or to use the restroom. The conveyor was two to three feet off the ground and had two four inch wide parallel belts. Its total width was approximately three feet. Although the parties dispute who was responsible for the structure.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
IS PE RM ITTE D A ND IS GO VE RN ED BY TH IS COUR T'S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND FEDERAL RULE O F APPELLATE PRO CEDURE 32.1. UNLESS THE SUM M ARY OR DER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DA TABASE W HICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WW W.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). THE PARTY C ITING THE SUM M ARY OR DER M UST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE. THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The BIA's order is VACATED in part. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision. We will vacate and remand for new findings if the agency's reasoning or its fact finding process was sufficiently flawed. Because it could be confidently predicted that the IJ would adhere to the decision were the case remanded).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The complaint was originally filed by ten plaintiffs. The remaining plaintiffs are: Terry Tatum. Count I of the first amended complaint alleged that plaintiffs were each subjected to racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). The spelling of this name as it appears in the court's caption is consistent with the caption on plaintiffs' complaint. 2 2 The case proceeded to trial on February 23. Numerous witnesses were called to the stand. There was no direct evidence. Plaintiffs Tatum and McNeal were terminated as probationary employees of the City because they falsified their written employment applications. Plaintiffs Hardy and Randolph were terminated for testing positive for illegal drug use. Failed to identify an adverse employment action taken by the City or to show that the alleged harassment was motivated by race.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PER CURIAM: Mario Haggard was killed as a result of a struggle with correctional officers while a pretrial detainee at the Montgomery County Detention Facility (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
There was substantial and competent evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Banks possessed a firearm. The suppression of the alternate juror's testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment the testimony was ambiguous on the issue of witness bias against Banks and its 1 No. 05 5032. Banks admission into evidence would have prejudiced the truth determining function of the trial. There was other evidence of witness bias elicited by defense counsel. Regina Walton and Shunta Johnson were robbed at gunpoint in an apartment complex parking lot in Memphis. Steve Martin were hanging out together on July 19. All four occupants were ordered out of the mini van. Was unable to describe the armed man. They denied having any prior knowledge that Banks was armed. Harris and Crutcher testified that they were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Michelson advised First Bank that Schmitt was unable to pay the debt. That Schmitt was advised of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy rights. Warning that interest will accrue on his account. Which prohibits a debt collector from contacting a debtor where the collection agency
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We also affirm the district court's ruling that broad arbitration clauses cannot be extended to compel parties to arbitrate disputes they have not agreed to arbitrate. Because the facts of this case have been detailed in prior opinions. The court held that claims between plaintiffs and defendants who are both signatories to contracts containing enforceable arbitration clauses must be arbitrated. The court found that those arbitration clauses that exclude punitive damages are unenforceable in this suit because they preclude recovery of treble damages under RICO. An HMO that is not a signatory to a particular contract may not invoke that contract's arbitration clause to compel arbitration. I.e. that HMOs could not compel arbitration of RICO claims if the arbitration clauses excluded punitive damages awards because such clauses were unenforceable.2 The Supreme Court reversed our decision and held that whether punitive damages limitations in the arbitration clauses precluded an award of treble damages. While the issue of the arbitrability of RICO claims in light of contractual punitive damages limitations was on appeal.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
She contends that she established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her relationship or association with her disabled newborn child was a motivating factor in the Bank's decision to eliminate her position and effectively terminate her employment. She argues that summary judgment was therefore improperly granted on several of her claims.1 For the reasons discussed below. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following is a summary of the background facts as set forth in the district court's summary judgment order. When she was promoted to Senior Vice President (VP) of Operations and Information Systems. She was promoted to Executive VP of Retail Banking. Cherpes was engaged by the Bank to help stabilize and reengineer the Operations Department. Strate was granted permission to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
When the liens 11707 were imposed before the FDIC was appointed receiver. Claiming that under 12 U.S.C. § 1825(b) Orange County's collection of the real property tax penalties was unlawful. That the FDIC was not liable for redemption penalties which were not secured by liens. If they have not been paid by December 10. The property tax delinquent penalties are subject to statutory liens. The FDIC argues that as receiver it is not liable for pre receivership liens on the real property securing property tax delinquent penalties. When the statute's language is plain. The sole function of the courts at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd is to enforce it according to its terms.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 14).1 Paragraphs 2 and 3 The unlawful activities whose proceeds were concealed or promoted were mail fraud. Also charged with conspiracy in the indictment were John Mamone. That charge was dismissed before trial. Is not relevant to this appeal. 2 1 of Count 14 explained that the purposes and objects of the conspiracy were: (a) to conduct financial transactions involving the proceeds of mail and wire fraud. Silvestri was charged in 30 substantive counts with money laundering. The essential facts in this complex fraud case are these. Buccinna and Weiss were also charged in the same substantive counts. Was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. 3 3 2 opportunities. Tang was left with a small clerical staff.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is a Florida prisoner on death row. Its history is quite complicated. Who was married to Charles von Maxcy (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Garland Curtis was convicted of sexually assaulting a victim by force. 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Was convicted of sexual assault on a female passenger. Curtis was incarcerated in the Seminole County. Also confined in that jail was Robert Bojan. Had pled guilty to several other federal offenses based upon fraudulent conduct and was awaiting sentencing. Who was prosecuting Curtis. It is this discussion that provides the factual basis for the issue now before us.1 Curtis also raises two other issues on appeal. His claim that the government did not prove venue is belied by the fact that the cruise ship sailed from and returned to United States territorial waters. The other issue that the government constructively amended the indictment by introducing evidence that Curtis drugged the passenger is meritless since the government did not argue that this formed an independent basis for conviction and the district court carefully instructed the jury that they must find that Curtis committed the assault by force. 2 1 Some three weeks later.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. MALDONADO-RAMIREZ (6/26/2000, NO. 99-11190)
We hold that the sentencing provisions applied to Maldonado Ramirez are unambiguous and we affirm the adjustment to his offense level based on his prior convictions.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is expressly pre empted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Dennis Mitchell Orbe was convicted by a Virginia jury of capital murder. He was sentenced to death for the murder. The entire incident was captured on videotape by the store's security camera. The following facts are taken from the opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court on Orbe's direct appeal of his convictions and sentence: Near 3:38 a.m. on January 24. Walked up to the check out counter where Richard Sterling Burnett was working as a clerk. As Burnett was clutching his chest and struggling to remain in a standing position. Although Orbe was quickly identified as the gunman from the still images obtained from the videotape. He was not apprehended until January 31. Orbe was ultimately tried and convicted in York County of the capital murder of Burnett. A capital sentencing proceeding was then held. Orbe
|
|
HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court granted summary judgment because it found that Rohan was not a
|
|
98-6358 -- P&P INDUSTRIES INC. V. SUTTER CORP. -- 05/28/1999
We must determine whether any federal district court could have jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award in this case. Authorizes confirmation only where the parties have agreed that a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Neither a judge's unfavorable rulings nor his opinions held as a result of earlier proceedings necessarily infer bias unless they are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We must determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a code enforcement officer condemns an apartment complex and evicts the tenants without providing the tenants with contemporaneous notice of their right to appeal the condemnation decision. We must then determine whether the tenants' right to contemporaneous notice was established with such clarity at the time of eviction in this case that the chief of the City of Orlando's Code Enforcement Bureau is not entitled to qualified immunity. Threatened to declare the building unfit for human occupancy if the Our recitation of the facts is based primarily on the admitted facts contained in the parties' joint pretrial statement. To the extent that material facts are in dispute. As we must when the issue of qualified immunity is raised in a summary judgment motion. 92526 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000). 2 1 violations were not corrected.2 The owner was informed that the City of Orlando Code Enforcement Board (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 17 the date
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Hamdi is being held according to the time honored laws and customs of war. There is nothing illegal about that. The question is essentially whether the United States can capture and detain prisoners of war without subjecting the factual circumstances surrounding foreign battlefield seizures to extensive in court review.1 The answer to this is now and always has been yes. I regret that my colleague does not even quote the provisions of Article I and Article II which delegate the conduct of war to the coordinate The government does not concede that Hamdi is a prisoner of war. Rather asserts that he is an unlawful combatant. The distinction is irrelevant because the decision to detain until the cessation of hostilities belongs to the executive in either case. The panel earlier expressed doubt that the timing of a cessation of hostilities was even justiciable. Is a question too fraught with gravity even to be adequately formulated when not compelled.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A state prisoner incarcerated in Missouri after conviction for three first degree murders (which are unrelated to the basis of this lawsuit). 877.42 in cash that had been in his vehicle when he was arrested on drug charges in May of 1995. It is not a party to this appeal. Concluding that the Hankins case was distinguishable. We will reverse the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. We have noted that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES were adopted in response to train derailments within the state. Are preempted by federal railroad safety laws or regulations. A Southern Pacific train was also involved in another toxic spill resulting from a derailment near Seacliff. CPUC was directed to consider factors such as (1) the severity of the grade and curve. CPUC was further directed to consider
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Rice has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have the reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by district court that Coore has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
|
|
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
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Richard Ceballos filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was subjected to adverse employ 3448 CEBALLOS v. Qualified immunity was not available to the individual defendants because the law was clearly established that Ceballos's speech addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer's interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption. Is entitled to such immunity depends on whether he was performing a state or a county function when he took the alleged actions with respect to Ceballos. We hold that in most respects he was acting in the latter capacity. He is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Neither is the County. In 1997 or 1998 he was assigned to the District Attorney's CEBALLOS v. GARCETTI 3449 Office's Pomona Branch and about a year later was promoted to calendar deputy. Told Ceballos that he believed that one of the arresting deputy sheriffs may have lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos was supervising the deputy district attorney assigned to the case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although Moody was apprised of his right to file pro se supplemental briefs in each appeal. We find no error in the district court's determination that the base offense level for this offense was twenty four based on Moody's criminal history. We have reviewed the record for meritorious issues and found none. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED *Moody's plea agreement contains a waiver of his right to appeal
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who is Hispanic. Griffith complains that he was suspended and then denied retraining. As some district courts have concluded. The third step in the McDonnell Douglas analysis must be modified
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Kelly DePetris shot and killed her husband Dana DePetris while he was asleep in bed. She claimed
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
OPINION PER CURIAM: Maria Acelina Valencia Fragoso is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection on August 26. She had lost the hearing notice and thought the hearing was scheduled for 1:00 p.m. She mistakenly thought that the hearing was scheduled for 1:00 p.m. (at which time she did appear). The hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. and Valencia Fragoso did not appear. She was four and one half hours late. Coupled with a lack of any showing that the IJ was still on the bench hearing cases. So long as he is there on other business and the delay is short as in this case [(20 minutes)] it is an abuse of discretion to treat a slightly late appearance as a nonappearance.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
SCI LIQUIDATING CORP. V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. (7/20/1999, NO. 98-9069)
SCI Liquidating Corporation (
|
|
98-1193C -- UMLIC-NINE CORP. V. LIPAN SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT CORP. -- 02/16/1999
The sentence should read as follows: We conclude that the congressional intent is best served by resetting the statute of limitations on the Note at the point when the RTC became receiver for Old Sunbelt. Even though the FDIC previously held the Note as receiver for Federated. A copy of the corrected page 12 is attached for your convenience. Sincerely. We affirm.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Farrow's claim is that Dr. Is liable for the conduct of Dr. The problem for Farrow is that there is no respondeat superior liability for a § 1983 claim. Farrow was an inmate in the Alabama prison system. Farrow then was released from prison in the first part of 1996. He was incarcerated before being able to do so. Farrow was given a physical and a dental examination on June 12. Was informed he would have to wait until after he was transferred to another correctional facility. Farrow was then sent to Bullock Correctional Facility where he made an appointment to see a dentist. Farrow was transferred on July 9. West was a dentist.3 1. Farrow was placed on the denture list at Easterling. Farrow explained his
|
|
98-1193A -- UMLIC-NINE CORP. V. LIPAN SPRING DEVELOPMENT CORP. -- 02/16/1999
Within the limitations period. A copy of the corrected page 9 is attached for your convenience. Sincerely. We affirm.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the District Court's order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. 2004
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendants have elected not to file a brief or otherwise participate in this appeal . BACKGROUND Troville is a civilly committed detainee at the South Bay Detainee Unit (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are referring to it as modified. 2 The Act is codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 169. § 8(a)(1) is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). 1 ANHEUSER BUSCH. Certain of Busch's employees are represented by the Brewery Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The charges were consolidated into a complaint against Busch (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
USA DIRECT Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (2) the district court's grant of summary judgment to USAD on USAD's counterclaim that it is entitled to $107. Wherein LEAA agreed to the following terms:
|
|
98-1193 -- UMLIC-NINE CORP. V. LIPAN SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT CORP. -- 02/16/1999
We affirm.
|
|
02-3194 -- U.S. V. BARAJAS -- 06/10/2003
Barajas was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Arguing that they were imposed without proper presentence notice and that they are not reasonably related to his crime of conviction. Reflected in the PSR was Defendant's history of violent behavior. Although he was not currently required to provide monthly support. At issue on appeal are two conditions imposed on that release: First. The issue is not necessarily waived. Under certain special circumstances we will consider a failure of notice claim even when it is not raised below. Was required to register as a sex offender as a special condition of supervised release. Observing that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that McCoy's Apprendi claims in his initial § 2255 motion are not jurisdictional and are barred by Teague's nonretroactivity standard. He is procedurally barred from raising them in his initial § 2255 motion. That is. Which were based on the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) applicable to cocaine base offenses involving more than 50 grams. Arguing that his sentence was illegal under Apprendi v. The magistrate judge to whom McCoy's motion was referred recommended that the district court deny McCoy's § 2255 petition on the ground that
|
|
HAZANI V. USITC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Rebekah Homesley (Homesley) was awarded $200. Homesley was awarded $165. Robert Yarborough (Yarborough) was Homesley's supervisor. Yarborough told Homesley he had just eaten lunch but had not known her name was lunch. Told Homesley that he was going to eat lunch and then grinned and wiped his mouth. Yarborough came into a welding booth where Homesley and another manual welder were discussing how to weld a fixture. The case was tried before a United States Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 1 4 HOMESLEY v. Yarborough replied that he was her boss and he would do as he liked and there was nothing she could do about it. What if an employee is having problems with sexual harassment?
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Christina Aragao and her two children were abducted and held hostage for several days before being freed by police. Ewin Oscar Martinez were convicted of hostage taking and conspiracy to commit hostage taking in violation of the Hostage Taking Act. Each was sentenced to life in prison. They raise three significant challenges to their convictions and sentences that the Hostage Taking Act is unconstitutional because it discriminates impermissibly on the basis of alienage and that Congress lacked the power to enact it. That the district court erred in applying a six level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(1) because a ransom note was never delivered. We are unpersuaded by those arguments and. Affirm.1 Several additional challenges were raised by appellants in their briefs and at oral argument. (4) failing to instruct the jury that alienage is an element of conviction under the Hostage Taking Act which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As they are relevant to the appeal. The following facts were established at trial and during the sentencing proceedings.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was subsequently prosecuted for first degree murder. The district court concluded that the Maryland appellate court's determination that the murder prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause was neither contrary to. On the issue of whether the state court's decision is contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal double jeopardy law. Michael Whittlesey was tried and convicted by a jury for robbery. The details of the crime and ensuing investigation are described at WHITTLESEY v. Whittlesey was sentenced to a ten year term for the robbery. A consecutive fifteen year term for the theft of the automobile and the remaining convictions were merged. The Maryland intermediate appellate court affirmed Whittlesey's convictions and Whittlesey's petitions for writ of certiorari were denied by both the Court of Appeals of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the United States. Was finally found in 1990 nearly eight years after his disappearance. Whittlesey was indicted in Baltimore County Circuit Court for Griffin's murder.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
They ask us to reverse the judgment on grounds related to the jury instructions and special interrogatories that were used. Also because they say that no punitive damages should have been awarded. Used excessive force against him while he was a prisoner. Luciano filed a joint motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity and other grounds.2 The district court denied that motion insofar as the excessive force claim was concerned. The case was tried before a jury. Ernest Johnson was incarcerated at Phillips Correctional Institution in Buford. He was returning to his cell after a work detail. A prison guard questioned Johnson as to his possession of food items from the prison store when it was not his
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This appeal is about an arrest. Rodriguez was the only passenger in Ms. Foulkes said that her driver's license was in her Because this appeal is from the denial of summary judgment. Id. 2 1 purse which was in her car. Who was seated in the car with his arm in a sling and resting on a pillow. Because Rodriguez was wearing a long sleeve shirt (after he had removed his sling). Nothing outwardly indicated that Rodriguez's arm was injured. Farrell was behind the car and that he could see the Sergeant in one of the car mirrors. Rodriguez also testified that the interior of the car was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Luis Cristobal was convicted on twenty two counts of a twenty three count indictment for. Cristobal contends that the district court erred in 1) denying his motion to suppress statements made while he was in the hospital. Appellant Luis Cristobal began experiencing personal problems that he claims were the result of his wife's philandering. A business owned and operated by Joseph Michael.2 1 Cristobal's remaining sufficiency of the evidence arguments are all predicated upon his claim that the evidence did not show he fired his gun at Officer Melton. We have carefully reviewed the record and are satisfied that the evidence. Were made of steel box tubing. The bomb placed at Colonial Iron Works was also made with a timing device. CRISTOBAL 3 Both explosive devices placed under the pickup trucks were designed to and did explode shortly after Haston and Michael started their engines later that morning. Though their injuries were not life threatening. Losses were minimal and no one was injured.3 After an initial investigation.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Seiser was employed as a nurse by Borgess Medical Center until 1995. Seiser was covered by a long term disability policy (
|
|
TEFEL V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4616)
(2) the district court's order denying the INS' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Appellees/Plaintiffs (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chandler indicated to the officers that he was in the Steinberger's neighborhood checking on his ex girlfriend's house at the time Mr. Chandler called Officer Redstone and inquired whether the 2 police were going to arrest him. Chandler replied that they [the victims] were ordered out of the house. When the officers queried whether the victims might have resisted. Chandler speculated that the victims would not have resisted if the murderer placed a knife to the wife's throat. Chandler further stated that the victims were probably killed for the $150. Chandler would have known this information from an examination of the victims' bank account record. Chandler stated that if he were the officers. He again spoke to Officer Redstone and told him a story of two hit men who were the likely murderers. He posited that the victims were connected to the murder of a man named Gill. Their murders were a retaliation for their involvement with Gill's murder. Chandler also stated that he thought the murder weapon was discarded in a body of water.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chandler indicated to the officers that he was in the Steinberger's neighborhood checking on his ex girlfriend's house at the time Mr. Chandler called Officer Redstone and inquired whether the police were going to arrest him. Chandler replied that they [the victims] were ordered out of the house. When the officers queried whether the victims might have resisted. Chandler speculated that the victims would not have resisted if the murderer placed a knife to the wife's throat. Chandler further stated that the victims were probably killed for the $150. Chandler would have known this information from an examination of the victims' bank account record. Chandler stated that if he were the officers. He again spoke to Officer Redstone and told him a story of two hit men who were the likely murderers. He posited that the victims were connected to the murder of a man named Gill. Their murders were a retaliation for their involvement with Gill's murder. Chandler also stated that he thought the murder weapon was discarded in a body of water.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Albeit in an election in which federal offices were on the ballot. Slone argues that if section 1973i(c) is found to reach the conduct to which he The Honorable David M. The statute is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress' enumerated powers. Slone contends that even if his conviction is not vacated. It was charged.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA (12/11/2001, NO. 00-14723)
Christina Aragao and her two children were abducted and held hostage for several days before being freed by police. Ewin Oscar Martinez were convicted of hostage taking and conspiracy to commit hostage taking in violation of the Hostage Taking Act. Each was sentenced to life in prison. They raise three significant challenges to their convictions and sentences that the Hostage Taking Act is unconstitutional because it discriminates impermissibly on the basis of alienage and that Congress lacked the power to enact it. That the district court erred in applying a six level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(1) because a ransom note was never delivered. We are unpersuaded by those arguments and. Affirm.
|
|
RITCHIE WILLIAM B V. SIMPSON ORENTHAL JAMES
THE JUICE were filed on behalf of Orenthal James Simpson for use with a broad range of goods. After the marks were approved by an examiner in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (
|
|
MONSANTO COMPANY V. MYCOGEN PLANT SCIENCE,
Argued for plaintiff appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. The lawsuit was filed on March 10. Judgment was entered on June 24. The six plaintiffs who were released from confinement during that interval are Danny Chadwick. 190 F.3d at 1283.The other five plaintiffs were still confined when judgment was entered in the district court but. Some of them have been released since then. All eleven of the plaintiffs are jointly represented in this appeal. Their counsel does not argue that any of those who were released after the date of the district court's judgment are. Our references hereafter to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. Which is with the words of the statutory provision.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND MFIP is a family limited partnership formed under Florida law in May 1990 for the purpose of owning property. Were named as general partners. MBI is a corporation formed under Florida law in October 1991 to act as the general partner of MFIP. PFH is a corporation formed under Florida law in 1993 for the purpose of holding title to real property. Two thirds of the PFH stock is owned by International Markets. One third of the PFH stock is owned by MFIP. When she realized that her initial loans were to 4 entities controlled by Matthews. Freezing the assets of Matthews' alleged alter egos and restraining the defendants from making payments to Mathews or to his alleged alter egos.3 The Corporate Defendants were directed to deposit all of their liquid assets into the registry of the court. The remaining defendants were Farm Depot. The records in these cases are filed as follows: in 98 8639 and 98 8687. The record consists of 1 volume and 8 boxes of exhibits (which are also filed as the record and exhibits in 98 8639 and 98 8687).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion filed 1/7/03 is vacated. Challenging the determination that his petition was not timely filed and the refusal of equitable tolling. The record presented to the district court was sparse indeed. By a man who was later executed for her murder.1 When all prospective jurors were asked for such information at voir dire. 88 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1956) (en banc). 2 Although the date of the published opinion is February 4. The record reflects and the State concedes that the order was actually entered on February 5. February 8 was late but only one day late. That jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We affirm the decision of the district court. 1 The judgment is the subject of the appeal in case number 03 6293. 1 No. 03 6587 BDT Products. BDT argued that Lexmark did not indicate which documents were translated. Why those documents were translated. Or how the documents were used in the case. BDT also argued that Lexmark made no attempt to separate charges for depositions actually used in the defense of the case or to identify which documents were copied and used. This court must first
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The fundamental issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the defendant police officers was correctly decided by the district court.1 We hold that it was. Talena Terrell was killed when Anoka County Deputy Sheriffs Brek Larson and Shawn Longen. Who decided to respond to a domestic disturbance call even though they had been told other officers were covering the call. Our review of the district court's ruling on qualified immunity is limited to whether the Plaintiffs have alleged a constitutional violation and whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the conduct. The Anoka County 911 service received a call to the effect that the caller's wife had locked herself and their three year old son in a bedroom and was threatening to run off with the child. The caller stated that the The denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
IJ A79 741 500 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. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. The BIA's order is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Lian claims that because he left China illegally he will likely be incarcerated upon his return. He presented documentary evidence to the IJ in support of his claim that it is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is the fourth time we have waded into this dispute between McKenzie Engineering. The only issues are the extent of the back pay due to four discharged union carpenters (and their replacements) and what fringe benefits McKenzie owes the fired employees (and their replacements). We have jurisdiction under § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (
|
|
GROSSFELD V. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMM'N (3/27/1998, NO. 96-4356)
The Double Jeopardy challenge is the only issue presented by appellants in this appeal.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Wilson was appointed after this case was orally argued en banc. Is an active member of the court at the time the case is decided. The opinion for the Court on her sexual harassment claim is joined in full by Chief Judge Anderson and Judges Edmondson. Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that: the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct: He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The investments were programs that promised enormous profits. The programs were available on a limited basis to groups of investors whose money would be pooled and delivered to a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Fulbright is corrected to read
|
|
96-3299 -- RILEY MANUFACTURING CO. INC. V. ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORP. -- 09/11/1998
We disagree with the district court's conclusion that there was no valid and enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties. To supply the plastic spigots and plastic lids that were made from injection molds that Riley designed and over which Riley asserted trade secret protection. The three provisions that are most relevant in this dispute are the copyright assignment. Arbitration clauses. The copyright provisions in the Manufacturing Agreement indicated that Riley already had assigned to Anchor Glass the copyrights for all of the ornamental designs that were then being used on the sun tea containers that Anchor Glass would be selling for Riley. Although Anchor Glass would have the right to sell off its remaining inventory of Riley manufactured sun tea jars when the contract expired. It would have no right to use or sell the Riley designs after the copyrights were reassigned to Riley. Under the termination clause. The parties specified what continuing rights each would have when the three year contract expired.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(2) denying Winters's motion for summary judgment on Count II of the complaint on the grounds that the deferred compensation accrual on the final cost report was immaterial. (4) denying Winters's motion for a new trial on the grounds that (a) the jury verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. (b) there was no evidence the Government sustained any harm. (c) the jury was confused in calculating damages. The jury verdict and remitted award of damages is AFFIRMED. All of which were managed through Medshares Management Group. Which was in place at all of the other home health agencies owned by Winters and managed by MMGI. The Plan was a deferred profit sharing and stock bonus plan. It was Winters's policy that after buying a home health agency. I at 132) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 7 the spelling of Jonathan Klein's name is corrected. Contending that the lawsuit was premature because the EEOC issued Lauricia a
|
|
01-5066 -- SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA V. NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION -- 04/17/2003
Appellants are the federal agencies and officials who threatened to prosecute three Native American tribes for use of a device called the Magical Irish Instant Bingo Dispenser System. Which we will call
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We disagree and conclude that the decision by defendants to discontinue plaintiff's benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. Aleksandr Raskin was working as a software developer for Engineering Technology Associates. Which is a subsidiary of defendant UNUM. The policy under which Raskin was insured defines disability as follows: TOTAL DISABILITY or TOTALLY DISABLED FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S OWN OCCUPATION means that until he reaches the end of his Maximum Benefit Period. The Employee: 1. is unable to perform the important duties of his own occupation on a Full time or part time basis because of an Injury or Sickness that started while insured under this Policy. Is under Doctor's Care. 2. 3. Whose eyesight was already compromised because a childhood injury left him blind in his left eye. George faxed them a one sentence note stating that Raskin was able to return to his previous job. Paul Revere wrote Raskin informing him that it was terminating his benefits. Shah Reddy reiterated her opinion that Raskin was unable to work.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the magistrate judge's report and find no reversible error. district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Young Sergio was thrown from a 1985 Dodge Caravan through the open liftgate and killed. Was driving the vehicle on an errand with her 8 year old daughter Maria riding in the front seat and young Sergio in the back seat. She drove through a red light and was struck in the left rear by an oncoming car traveling at 30 m.p.h. Who was not wearing a seatbelt. Was thrown through the rear liftgate that had opened during the accident. Both of whom were wearing seatbelts. Were not seriously injured. Negligent design under South Carolina law were allowed to go to the jury. The Estate asserted that
|
|
01-1197 -- DODGE V. COTTER CORPORATION -- 04/22/2003
The Mill was operated for the extraction and concentration of uranium oxide from ore using both alkaline and acid leach processes that resulted in two types of waste: tailings. These wastes were originally deposited in a series of unlined ponds. Lincoln Park. Is a mile and a half north of the Mill. Dry tailings were carried off site by winds and raffinate leached into groundwater beneath the Mill and flowed north toward Lincoln Park along the Sand Creek channel. The Atomic Energy Commission (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He alleged that he was terminated because of his race and sex and because he engaged in protected conduct. The parties consented to have a magistrate judge exercise jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The case was assigned to Judge Joseph Kinneary of the Southern District of Ohio. Noted that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff Wanda Birch was hired as a Probate Court magistrate after interviewing with Probate Court Administrator/Magistrate John Polito. Birch was hired as a Release of Assets magistrate and continues to serve in that capacity. The salary survey showed that the average salary of female Probate Court magistrates was lower than the average salary of male Probate Court magistrates. That the highest paid female magistrate was earning less than the lowest paid male magistrate. Birch's salary was revealed to be the lowest of any of the magistrates in any of the divisions of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Birch then asked Judge Donnelly why she was the lowest paid Magistrate at the court and whether he had a concern about her work.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The appellees alleged that the joint venture was harmful to their business because customers feared that the Dresser product would become obsolete. That they would not have bought the distributorship had they known about the pending joint venture. I. BACKGROUND Dresser was primarily an oil service company that acquired International Harvester's construction equipment business in 1982. Was a lesser player in the heavy construction equipment industry which was dominated by other companies such as Caterpillar and Komatsu. Dresser was one of the companies having difficulty staying competitive in the industry. Joint ventures were increasingly common in the industry as the strategy for survival. The Williams were Georgia residents who were sophisticated business executives. The Tri State Tractor Company (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
171 B.R. 387 IRS cross appeals the district court's award of We have resolved several issues which attorney fees under § 105. required clarification in this circuit. All citations are to the 1994 United States Code. Initially we conclude we have jurisdiction to review the district court's order as a
|
|
UNITED STATES V. CASTRO
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. Circuit court judges have the authority to appoint special assistant public defenders (SAPDs) and approve their compensation terms for which Metropolitan Dade County issues payment upon receipt of a court approved bill. Sepe arranged to have Gelber appoint Arthur Massey. Most of Gelber's conversations with Takiff regarding illegal conduct were tape recorded. Under 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5128a.html">CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY V. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION<BR></A><BR>
Zieve argued the cause for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0325p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States of America appeals the district court's grant of William Edward Richardson's motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle in which he was a passenger. The entire traffic stop was recorded by the video camera in Officer Fisher's police car. The following people were traveling in the vehicle: the driver. Upon learning that Shirley Richardson was the owner of the vehicle. Officer Fisher informed Collier that he was going to issue a warning citation for traveling too closely to the first truck. Officer Fisher asked whether there were any drugs. Officer Fisher asked Collier to remain behind the car while he asked Shirley Richardson for permission to search the car.1 1 While Officer Fisher and Collier were talking. Darnell complied and Officer Fisher was satisfied with his identification. Officer Fisher then asked Darnell whether there were any guns in the car. Officer Fisher discovered that the gun was loaded. He stated that he would have to inquire into Darnell's employment and permit to carry the gun.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4133.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding that the Plan's determination that Plaintiffs were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-3451.man.html">MCELLIGOTT V. FOLEY (8/3/1999, NO. 98-3451)<BR></A><BR>
Head nurse Sharon Wagner on Elmore's claim that the medical care he received in jail violated the Eighth Amendment.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/031079P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0268p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTMwMjVfc28ucGRm/05-3025_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-1351.htm">97-1351 -- U.S. V. CARTER -- 06/09/1998<BR></A><BR>
<strong> </strong>and<strong> BRISCOE</strong> Circuit Judges. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/031466P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding Peebles' continuing injuries were non occupational. Northcross then placed Peebles on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/031181P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Leathers argues that his convictions under § 922(g) were constitutionally deficient in that his possession of the firearm and ammunition lacked a sufficient impact on interstate commerce. Leathers crashed the truck he was driving and fled on foot before being apprehended by police officers. The firearm used in the shooting was discovered the next morning along the route of the chase. Leathers was charged in the circuit court of Jackson County with assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. Was appointed as a special prosecutor because of an internal conflict in the Jackson County prosecutor's office. Was retained to represent Leathers. Leathers was sentenced on the state court convictions and received a sentence of ten years for second degree assault and a concurrent sentence of three years for armed criminal action. 2 A federal grand jury initially indicted Leathers on January 16. I. Leathers's first claim is that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) as applied to him is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because his possession of a firearm and ammunition did not have a significant impact on interstate commerce.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTM4OTZfc28ucGRm/05-3896_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6379.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant was sentenced to ninety six months' imprisonment some eighteen months above the Sentencing Guideline recommendation and ordered to pay $80. Defendant's first payment obligation to Bridgeview was due January 1998. These dividends were Defendant's sole source of income. Bainbridge informed Defendant that the loan reversal was not possible. A title was issued on January 12. Those loan officers both stated that because the amount of the loan was within Defendant's lending authority. To put Defendant's initials on the paperwork to signify that Defendant was in fact the loan officer of record. This distribution was recorded on several official bank forms as well as a nonstandard memorandum created by Mr. Machala for the express purpose of detailing the loan proceed distribution
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5022a.html">WALTER J. THOMAS V. COLIN POWELL<BR></A><BR>
Arthur Robbins argued the cause for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1126.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. was on brief. Perkins Thompson Hinckley & Keddy were on brief. Plaintiff appellants are parents of school age children who attend schools that have entered into exclusive contracts with MacLean Stevens Studios. Defendant appellees are MacLean Stevens Studios. BACKGROUND The facts necessary to decide this case are not in dispute and were aptly summarized by the district court. Inc. is a New Hampshire corporation that offers student portrait services in several New England states. Appellants are parents of school age children who attend schools that have entered into exclusive contracts with MacLean Stevens. These contracts provide that the school will receive a commission of twenty percent (20%) of the price of the portrait packages sold and designate MacLean Stevens as the exclusive provider of portraits on school property. The school portraits purchased by appellants are priced according to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-6219.htm">96-6219 -- CITIZEN BAND POTAWATOMI INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA V. COLLIER -- 05/05/1998<BR></A><BR>
Seeking a declaration that the BIA is required to obtain the Tribe's consent before placing into trust land within the boundaries of the former Potawatomi reservation. The lawsuit was precipitated when the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma (Absentee Shawnee Tribe) applied to the BIA to place such land in trust and the BIA informed the Potawatomi Tribe that its consent was not required under the relevant statute and regulations. Holding that a prior ruling on the matter by the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) for the Absentee Shawnee Tribe was contrary to law. Appeals and we affirm.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1059.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Berman & Dowell was on brief. Was on brief. Appellant David Hollis
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2368.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Was on brief. The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Counterfeiting and was sentenced to pay restitution in an amount equal to the total loss to all the victims of the scheme. Was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud as well as several substantive counts including bank fraud. Collins was alleged to have obtained the copies of checks issued by the legitimate businesses. The Indictment also names the specific co conspirator who is alleged to have cashed specific individual checks. Collins' various check cashings were detailed. The first of some 96 checks was cashed by Collins on May 17. The PSR listed eight companies whose checks were counterfeited and cashed by Collins. It stated that he went out to cash checks with other co conspirators who were cashing checks under these same company names. The total amount of these checks cashed was $158. The PSR stated that the total loss to victims of all check cashing alleged in the Indictment for whom the government had been able to determine names and addresses was $274.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4218.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the district court did not <hr> have before it evidence sufficient to support this enhancement. The primary evidence bearing on the nature of the injuries was a statement in the PSR that. Where he was provided ibuprofen for his forehead and an oral gel for the cut in his mouth. All three photographs are of particularly poor quality and cast little light on the nature of the officer's injuries. Which is indiscernible in the photograph. The officer did not testify and there was no medical evidence. Contending that the injuries sustained by the officer were too trivial to qualify. Concluded: [I]t seems to me that his injuries were not trivial. Even though it's Ibuprofen and that involves laceration in the mouth area and it appears from what I read that what happened was his tooth probably cut his lip. That injuries to the mouth just are in and of themselves very painful. You have to eat around them. We agree that the evidence was insufficient to support the enhancement. The relevant Sentencing Guideline limits the definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B094C56A144455988256E5A00707D7B/$file/0017050.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He contends that the jury was prejudiced by several confrontation and due process clause violations at trial including: (1) the improper introduction of triple hearsay statements. Was the actual killer) to evade the police. In light of the fact that the prosecution's case was based almost entirely on the eyewitness testimony of a single accusing witness who himself had the opportunity and a possible motive to commit the offense. Michael Luke was found stabbed to death in the parking lot of the Cambridge Garden Apartments in Sacramento. It was on the basis of this accusation alone that Thomas was arrested and charged with murder. 1. Who was also looking for Schwab because Schwab owed him money.1 On December 22. Either have the money or bring it back as soon as possible.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4070.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Taj Becker is a medical doctor in St. She was investigated by Utah's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) for alleged billing irregularities. Those charges were later dismissed by state prosecutors concerned about the methods MFCU used to obtain records and assess Becker's billing practices. (1) This Cross Appeal raises no issues not implicated by the Appellant's brief. (2) The Honorable Claire V. Sitting by designation. <hr> After the charges were dismissed. Alleging that the MFCU investigation was a sham to force her to pay civil penalties to avoid criminal prosecution. Her lawsuit was based on several federal and state theories. I. Factual Background Becker is a board certified neurologist practicing in St. The MFCU investigation centered on a suspicion that Becker
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2231.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Campagna were on brief. Nelson and Fitzhugh & Associates were on brief. Was laid off. Arguing that Kodak's layoff decision was discriminatory because it resulted from a ranking process that relied on racially biased performance appraisals prepared in 1990. That Thomas's claim was time barred because the performance appraisals were conducted outside of Title VII's statutory limitation period. Both issues are before us on appeal. We find Thomas's claim to be timely because the discriminatory appraisals that she is challenging first caused her concrete harm when they led to her layoff in 1993. Because we also find that she has presented enough evidence to support her claim that the performance appraisals were racially biased. This is one such case. When an employer utilizes scores from past performance appraisals in an objective formula to determine who will be laid off. The accrual date for the limitations period is the date of the notice of layoff. Once there is sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact that the employer's articulated reason for an adverse employment action is a pretext.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2194.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief for appellee FTP Software. Were on brief. The company announced that sales growth had declined and that it would have lower earnings. The stock price was $8 per share. Plaintiffs' suit was filed on March 3. It was dismissed on September 24. The PSLRA imposes requirements for pleading with particularity that are consistent with this circuit's prior rigorous requirements for pleading fraud with particularity under Fed. Is closer to being a lesser form of intent. This was allegedly done in furtherance of a scheme to inflate revenues by improperly booking contingent transactions as final sales. The complaint was adequate to survive. Plaintiffs appeal saying that summary judgment on the white out allegations was inappropriate. That they are given refuge by Rule 56(f). That the dismissal of the remaining allegations was improper. That they were entitled to amend their complaint. The demand for FTP's software was diminishing because many of FTP's clients were either developing the technology themselves or acquiring competing systems from other manufacturers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A656293E710C2CA88256E61007BA023/$file/0170748.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the proper respondent. Circuit Judge: Jose Flores Chavez was fifteen years old when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5048.html">BARRON BANCSHARES, INC., ET AL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Mark J. Argued for plaintiff appellant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>John V. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Stuart E. Cl. 310 (2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/11/023328P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She was later made director of marketing and a vice president of the bank. Tenkku learned from a former employee that she and two other female vice presidents were being paid about $10.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1974.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2170.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sinks was stopped by Moriarty. He was driving a 1974 Ford flatbed pickup truck that Officer Davis described as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4928E2354A1A790B88256C6B005FCEEB/$file/0071285.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Tashima *Submission was deferred for seven days in order to allow supplemental briefing of the jurisdiction issue. **The Honorable Thomas M. Miller contends that the tax court erred in concluding that she was not entitled to an abatement of interest on employment taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6404(e). The Commissioner conducted an examination of Miller's business and concluded that the individuals should have been treated as employees rather than independent contractors. Was dispositive. The tax court's grant of summary judgment is subject to de novo review. Or (B) any payment of any tax described in section 6212(a) to the extent that any error or delay in such payment is attributable to such an officer or employee being erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial act. The statute was amended by adding the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/94-9105.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-15721.man.html">GRAYSON V. THOMPSON (7/16/2001, NO. 00-15721)<BR></A><BR>
Darrell Grayson was convicted of the capital murder of an elderly widow and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Annie Laura Orr was an eighty six (86) year old widow who lived alone in her house in Montevallo. They were armed with a .38 Caliber handgun. Orr was elderly. Orr's bedroom where she was apparently sleeping. Darrell Grayson then placed a pillowcase over her head and wrapped two relatively long lengths of masking tape very tightly around her head so that when they were finished he[r] head then appeared to be that of a mummy. Orr's murder and was familiar generally with the Grayson family. Officers knew that Kennedy and Grayson were friends and had been seen together the previous night. Officers were aware that Grayson had worked for Mrs. Orr previously and that he was familiar with her residence. Grayson's Confessions</EM></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8012.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Garcia's final base offense level was 30. (3) his sentence is unconstitutional in light of United States v. Garcia learned that the daughters' ages were 7 and 12. Garcia also stated that he wished he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Donnie Nero have filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of summary judgment on plaintiff Laura Gray's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). I. Connors State College of Agriculture and Applied Sciences (CSC) is a state community college with its main campus in Warner. Baker is director of CSC's Muskogee campus and Nero is president of CSC. Gray was employed full time at the Muskogee campus. CSC informed Gray that the procedure she requested was available only to faculty in lay off situations. Asserting the procedure was not consistent with CSC's written policies. It advised Gray's attorney that the procedure offered to Gray was consistent with CSC's policies. Although the letter was received by Gray on January 14. Gray filed suit against defendants alleging that her termination (1) was in violation of the FMLA and the corresponding state family and medical leave provisions. (2) was in violation of her constitutional due process rights.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6384.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. (1) This matter is submitted on the briefs by this court's own motion. Gordon responds that her challenge to the amount of restitution is not covered by her waiver of appellate rights and that. If it is. That is Mastercard XXXX XXXX XXXX 9512. The loss associated with this count was $7. Gordon fraudulently used credit cards belonging to other persons.(2) The total loss resulting from the count of conviction and the other incidents was $68. Gordon was hired to be a caretaker for two elderly women who subsequently died. The Scope of the Waiver of Appellate Rights Waivers of appellate rights are generally enforceable. We must determine whether such review is precluded by the waiver. If the appeal is within the scope of the waiver. Plea agreements are governed by contract principles. One key principle is the doctrine of contra proferentem. That ambiguities in agreements are to be construed against the drafter. Gordon's plea agreement contains the following waiver of appellate rights: Defendant understands that a sentencing guideline range for her case will be determined by the Court under the guidelines issued by the U.S.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/44E513E0FE4020B188256B7200621453/$file/0055722.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-6372.opa.html">JOVE ENGINEERING V. IRS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jove Engineering v. We have resolved several issues which required clarification in this circuit. We remand to the district court to assess attorney fees consistent with 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/02-6101.htm">02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 12/11/2002<BR></A><BR>
(d) the award of $39 million for consumer redress is contrary to undisputed record evidence. <strong><u></strong></u> <p> In addition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1229.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mongue were on brief for Beaulieu Wielsbeke. Jr. were on brief for Jere Scola. Two issues have been BOWNES. Jr. is the appellant. Is an appeal by Scola on the merits from a summary judgment in favor of defendants appellees Beaulieu Wielsbeke. In which the defendants are appellants. Focuses on only one question: whether Scola's appeal from the summary judgment against him was timely filed. Because we find that Scola's appeal was not timely filed. A notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken. This 30 day time limit is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-4684.opa.html">FDIC V. STAHL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>FDIC v. Of the target loans were time barred. These motions were denied.<p> The case proceeded to trial against four directors: Angelique Stahl. Erred in denying summary judgment when claims relating to two of the target loans were time barred. BACKGROUND<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1084.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ERRATA SHEET ERRATA SHEET The opinion of the court is corrected as follows: On p.10. Assistant United States Attorney were on brief. Silverglate and Silverglate & Good were on brief. Lui's petition for habeas corpus was premised on the fact that the reversion of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China will take place on July 1. It will be impossible for the Crown Colony to try and to punish Lui before that date. The United States argues that Lui is within the literal terms of the extradition treaties between the United States and the United Kingdom. An argument which is surely wrong. Lui's more serious argument is that the Senate. The treaties give the courts a greater role when such considerations are present. Lui's posture is that of one charged with an ordinary crime. His claim is that to surrender him now to Hong Kong is. Could not have intended such a result. The Senate was well aware of the reversion when it approved a supplementary treaty with the United Kingdom in 1986. The Senate could easily have sought language to address the reversion of Hong Kong if it were concerned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0332p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court declined to rule on the defendants' claim of qualified immunity before trial and instead instructed the jury to determine whether certain correspondence was in fact legal mail and whether that correspondence had been improperly opened outside of Sallier's presence. As well as the district court's failure to grant a new trial based on a number of evidentiary decisions and what they contend were erroneous jury instructions. We conclude that the question of what constitutes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2314.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal is a sequel to Simon v. After the case was returned to the district court. Further action was suspended until the bankruptcy cases were terminated. Defendant's motion is untimely in that it was not filed within one year following judgment of this case. We are confronted with three questions. The first is whether the court erred in ruling that the 60(b)(3) motion was untimely filed. The second question is whether the court erred in ruling that appellant failed to demonstrate a 60(b)(6) claim for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2110.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Must be nurtured if it is to retain its vitality. These issues are whether the automatic stay precludes a state court from undertaking ministerial acts after a bankruptcy filing. What acts are exempt under that rubric. Saying that its post petition actions had been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/021941P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When he was placed on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2325.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When she was arrested at the Mexican border carrying 200 pounds of marijuana. When he too was arrested at the Mexican border carrying 213 pounds of marijuana. She was hired by Edward Atencio. Which was the place for distribution charged in Count 4. Among the papers seized were drug ledgers obtained from three of those locations. Counsel for Edward Atencio told the jury: This is a guy who. When he was free for 80 days. Should he have fled to Mexico? This was a multi million dollar operation. Eva Atencio was in jail. <hr> [Defense Counsel:] I object to that. Ed Atencio is supposed to go to Mexico. Where was he supposed to flee? Or arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-2286.htm">01-2286 -- U.S. V. QUARRELL -- 11/05/2002<BR></A><BR>
The Quarrells argue (1) the district court erred in not requiring the government to prove the Quarrells knew they were excavating on public land. (2) the court erred in not allowing the Quarrells to present a defense based upon their belief that they were excavating on private land. (3) the court did not have authority to order restitution and. The amount awarded was an abuse of discretion. Michael argues the court should have granted him credit for acceptance of responsibility. Were arrested for vandalizing an archaeological site in the Gila National Forest in southern New Mexico. The site where they were apprehended has been public property since 1967 and is known as the East Fork site. When the sensor was activated a few weeks later. Among their possessions were backpacks and sleeping bags. Sera pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of ARPA. <p> The Quarrells stipulated that they were familiar with Mimbres archaeology and art. They knew they were digging in a prehistoric Mimbres Pueblo. The government filed a motion to preclude the Quarrells from presenting evidence and arguing as a defense that they did not know they were excavating on public land.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2283.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is charged with reentering the United States after being previously deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a)(1). Valenzuela Puentes was arrested in August 2003. Valenzuela Puentes asked the district court for a psychological evaluation and hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241(b) to determine whether her client was competent to stand trial. Valenzuela Puentes at the detention center where he was then incarcerated. The evaluation was conducted on October 2. Valenzuela Puentes was incompetent <hr> to stand trial. That his amenability to treatment was questionable due to his low level of intellect. Valenzuela Puentes's attorney stipulated that her client was incompetent to stand trial. Valenzuela Puentes was transferred to the mental health department of the federal medical center in Butner. Where he was evaluated by board certified staff psychiatrist Dr. Valenzuela Puentes was incompetent to stand trial. That he was incompetent to stand trial. Valenzuela Puentes believed he could not be facing federal immigration charges because he was employed as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-3080.opa.html">FOREHAND V. FLORIDA STATE HOSP. AT CHATTAHOOCHEE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Forehand v. Their appeal raises the following issues: (1) whether the district court erred in decertifying the class ten years after the case was filed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Forehand applied for and was denied promotion to Ward Supervisor by the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTEyMzJfc28ucGRm/05-1232_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-9069.man.html">COLE V. DEP'T OF AGRIC. (1/21/1998, NO. 96-9069)<BR></A><BR>
Facts and Procedural History</CENTER> </P> <P> Cole is a tobacco dealer. Cole was prosecuted and acquitted of criminal charges in connection with this discrepancy. After he was acquitted of the criminal charges. He argues that he has already been acquitted of criminal charges in connection with marketing over quota tobacco and the civil penalties are a second attempt at punishment for the same conduct.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6353.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Paul (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Paul Insurance Co. will be referred to collectively as USF&G. (2) The Master Surety Agreement provided: III(A). Or (2) [Fulsom's] failure to perform or comply with any of the provisions of this AGREEMENT. (formatting in original) IV (A) The liability of [Fulsom] hereunder shall extend to and includeall amounts paid by [USF&G] in good faith under the belief that: (1) [USF&G] was or might be liable therefore. (2) such payments were necessary or advisable to protect any of [USF&G's] liability or alleged liability. Indemnitors have orally acknowledged their obligation to indemnify and hold harmless Surety from any and all reasonable losses. The purpose of his document is to set forth the terms and conditions under which Indemnitors have agreed to collateralize and reimburse the Surety its cost to complete the Contract and its other reasonable expenses all as provided for under the terms of the Master Surety Agreement. Joe Fulsom testified that Fulsom was liable to USF&G in the amount of $551.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will deny enforcement of the Board's bargaining order and remand the case to the Board to conduct an evidentiary hearing on St. Francis's objection to the second election. possible that the Board's determination that the Biddle letter does not constitute a violation of the Act is correct. Francis is favored on the question of timing. The timing of the letter and some of the other circumstances of this case are not unlike those in Dayton Hudson Department Store Co. v. A letter with substantial misrepresentations was mailed to employees three days before the election. The writers of the letter were known to be allied with the union. It may have had a sufficient opportunity to do so. Was able to effectively respond). The extent of the misrepresentation in this case is disputed. Francis alleges it was significant. Whether employees were affected by the alleged misrepresentation is unclear. Francis has provided scant evidence that employees were affected by the letter. Mindful that no set of factors governs whether or not an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0169p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The victim was John Anthony. Who was killed at gunpoint while working in his store in Detroit. Were tried together and convicted of the murder. Harris was tried later. Harris contends that he was denied due process of law when. He was denied free transcripts of the earlier trial of West and Wilkes. Harris claims that the transcripts were necessary for effective impeachment of the state's witnesses. The district court also found that any error was harmless. The underlying habeas action was filed in early 1997. Federal habeas review of the state court's decision is governed by the standards established by the AEDPA. An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a state conviction cannot be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0168p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The maximum penalty for second degree murder in the case at bar is life imprisonment. We are of the opinion that under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3253.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appeals a district court order affirming the Commissioner's determination she is not entitled to Social Security benefits for the period from November 30. The underlying basis for her disability claim was an automobile accident on July 12. After plaintiff's benefits applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. She was granted a hearing in 1996 before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Bono. ALJ Bono's 1996 decision denying benefits was affirmed by the Appeals Council on March 23. Barnhart is substituted for Kenneth S. Apfel as the appellee in this action. (2) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. A supplemental hearing was held in June of 2000 before ALJ Reed. Who concluded plaintiff was not disabled prior to March 24. Standard of Review Our standard of review is well established: We review the agency's decision to determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and (1) The exact basis for this award is unclear from the record.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/00-5074.htm">00-5074 -- U.S. V. OVERHOLT -- 10/10/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D85DBFEC9FD4BC788256E5A00707D3D/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1532.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
29 U.S.C. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. 000 in question was not eligible for inclusion in Mr. Wolberg's benefit calculation because it was a special retention bonus specifically excluded from the definition of qualifying compensation under the terms of the Plan. Wolberg's claim is not supported by substantial evidence. Was arbitrary and capricious. BACKGROUND The facts are undisputed. Was identified by AT&T as one of the experienced employees AT&T desired to retain to facilitate a successful merger transition. Which was reduced to a written agreement dated May 2. Colorado 80112 Dear Wayne: We are pleased to confirm an offer of a temporary assignment at AT&T Broadband. You will hold the position of Vice President Finance. The initial assignment is for up to three months and is intended to assist with the transition of the MediaOne Group Audit and Consulting Services function to AT&T Broadband. You will be assigned to complete other special projects at my direction. This assignment is to conclude on March 31 or April 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTEwMzNfc28ucGRm/05-1033_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C2CBD69E6E2C18388256AFD001790CB/$file/9735191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1259.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence was indicted by a federal grand jury for carrying out a scheme to defraud Medicare. Although chelation therapy is generally not covered by Medicare. Lawrence submitted bills to Medicare indicating the clinic had performed a form of intravenous therapy which was covered by Medicare. Lawrence was convicted of four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343. Lawrence appeals arguing that: (1) the district court should not have refused to use several instructions he proposed. (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. (3) the district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the claims made to Medicare were unpayable on their face. Lawrence also argues that his sentence is unconstitutional under Blakely v. OIG discovered that billings for medical services were being made to Medicare from the clinic using the provider identification number of a Dr. Mitchell was between eighty one and eighty two years old and did not live in Denver. Mitchell was only at the clinic on Wednesdays for part of the day.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1646.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1995.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. Ropes & Gray were on brief. Thacher & Bartlett were on brief. Both complaints assert that there were misleading statements and nondisclosures in the registration statement and prospectus prepared in connection with a public offering of stock. Background Digital Equipment Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-2225.htm">01-2225 -- U.S. V. HARRISON -- 08/07/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0121p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tewksbury was working alone as the night clerk at the King Kwik convenience store at 9870 Pippin Road in Hamilton County. Monte was married and was the father of three children. Robert Shephard was driving northbound on Pippin Road. Monte was bleeding from his side. Went back to the telephone which was still off the hook. Monte was transported to a hospital.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/01-11664.opn.html">TROVILLE V. VENZ (8/28/2002, NO. 01-11664)<BR></A><BR>
Defendants have elected not to file a brief or otherwise participate in this appeal . We REVERSE.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0069p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
None of which are present here. 1222 (7th Cir.) (noting that a denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is considered a final. Appealable order if there are no material facts in dispute. Because part of the harm sought to be averted by the doctrine of immunity is the necessity of standing trial). The denial is also not an immediately appealable interlocutory order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because the issue of whether Maquina Musical's motion for a preliminary injunction should have been granted is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for CIGNA Fire Insurance. Clair & Cava was on brief for MacDonald & Johnson. Before us are BOWNES. CIGNA Fire Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/026031P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND The material facts are not in dispute. The debtors' primary business is the manufacturing of cutting and welding equipment. The Estates shall reimburse the Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by them in respect thereof at the time such expenses are incurred. Damage or liability which is finally judicially determined to have resulted from the willful misconduct or gross negligence of any Indemnified Party. 3 To resolve numerous objections4 from the U.S. Contribution or reimbursement therefore are approved by the Court. (b) The Debtors shall have no obligation to indemnify Houlihan Lokey. For any claim or expense that is either (i) judicially determined (the determination having become final) to have arisen solely from Houlihan Lokey's gross negligence. Stating it was excessive. Stated that the portion of the indemnification provision that releases Houlihan for any liability arising from its engagement other than that judicially determined to be willful misconduct or gross negligence is inappropriate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2211.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellees. We note Plaintiffs' statement that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></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-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AE08EE375DF613B88256AD1005BFD3B/$file/9956472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Rice is an 13441 unpublished disposition. Is available on Westlaw#FC# and LEXIS#FC#. It is marked with the following notice:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1253a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sher argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/012821P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That it was a breach of contract. The Magistrate Judge held that there was no evidence that Allen's proffered reason for firing Smith was pretextual. On appeal Smith contends that there was evidence of pretext and that Allen breached a contractual duty to her. The Foundation is the fund raising arm of Allen Memorial Hospital. We will refer to the defendants collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A5323A70CBF181388256EF200793C3B/$file/0335618.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brown alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when a statute. Was applied by the Oregon State Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1578.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Since the facts have been described in the district court's opinion. We do not repeat them here except as is necessary to explain our affirmance. Notice of Time of Disciplinary Hearing Figueroa claims that he was not given a required 24 hour notice of his disciplinary hearing and that delivery of the disciplinary report to him two days before the hearing was insufficient notice. Provision of Interpreter Figueroa alleges that he should have been given a Spanish speaking counselor to assist him at the disciplinary hearing rather than an English speaking counselor. Was told that she was 1. Which are regulations governing the discipline and classification of inmates at the state facility where Figueroa is incarcerated and which have the force and effect of state law. The version of the Morris Rules at issue is appended to Morris v. Figueroa's state law claims are not before us. By any applicable statute of limitations. 3 unavailable.2 Figueroa wanted her to assist him at the hearing because she could explain words he did not understand and she would have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064292p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will. Will order the reinstatement of Broadcom's state and common law claims. Mobile Wireless Telephony and the UMTS Standard Mobile wireless telephony is the general term for describing the technology and equipment used in the operation of cellular telephones. It is essential that all components involved in this transmission of information be able to communicate seamlessly with one another. Industry wide standards are necessary to ensure their interoperability. Standards are determined privately by industry groups known as standards determining organizations (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-14090.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BREEDEN (1/28/2002, NO. 00-14090)<BR></A><BR>
They ask us to reverse the judgment on grounds related to the jury instructions and special interrogatories that were used. Also because they say that no punitive damages should have been awarded. Used excessive force against him while he was a prisoner. Luciano filed a joint motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity and other grounds.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-2225.htm">01-2225 -- U.S. V. HARRISON -- 07/18/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60413.0.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. Lambus was hired as a firefighter Following an recruit trainee by the JFD shortly thereafter. altercation between Lambus and an instructor at the JFD Training Academy. Formally terminated The district court stated that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/37773A844398187E88256AE20059E9CA/$file/0015058.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where they are examined by metal detectors and their possessions are x rayed. Globe argued that Dazo's state law claims were preempted by the Warsaw Convention. Holding that the theft occurred while Dazo was in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60085.0.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. Richardson argues that the district court erred in determining that her second lawsuit against DeSoto was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. At which time she was employed by DeSoto as a booking officer. Was based on an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50686.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Foster contends that the district court erred in finding that Neville was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. 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. R. 47.5.4. * further argues that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding his claims against Bank One. The loan was again renewed and extended in the amount of $523. Foster subsequently filed suit against Bank One and Neville in Texas state court alleging that the 2000 loan was illegal and unenforceable because it was not the loan Neville promised him and he agreed to it only as a result of economic duress. A declaratory judgment that the lien on his residence was illegal and unenforceable. The only jurisdictional issue is whether Neville has been properly joined as a part y.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-13147.opn.html">RODRIGUEZ V. FARRELL (1/30/2002, NO. 00-13147)<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="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/004006P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court is affirmed. Which NECA had already negotiated and which was effective through May 31. NECA is an association that represents electrical contractors and negotiates collective bargaining agreements on their behalf. 2 2 1 work distribution regime.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/026006P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over the appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court denying the motion to reconsider. ISSUES The first issue on appeal is whether the Debtors' appeal was timely. We conclude that the appeal was not timely as to the bankruptcy court's original order declining to reopen the Debtors' Chapter 7 bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350 to permit the Debtors to pursue an action against Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061663np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All fictitious names for person or entities whose identities are presently unknown Jeff Player. Plaintiffs argue that the District Court abused its discretion in finding that McDonald was not qualified and that his methodology was unreliable. Even if McDonald's testimony was properly excluded. There was still sufficient evidence in the record to establish that they were injured by Motiva. The District Court should not have granted Motiva's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' negligence claim. We will affirm the decision of the District Court. I. Plaintiffs are the current and former owners of residential properties located in Gloucester Township. Motiva was responsible for the discharge of hazardous substances from a gasoline service station into the soil and groundwater near Plaintiffs' properties. Is connected to the municipal water supply. That property is owned by John and Maria Wallace. Who admitted that their drinking water was not affected by the leak at Motiva's gasoline station. Although VOCs were detected in the wells of the other eight properties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061457p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this appeal is whether an arbitrator or a court should decide whether coverage disputes under essentially identical insurance contracts should be arbitrated separately on a contract by contract basis or collectively in a consolidated arbitration. We believe that decision comports with the direction provided by two Supreme Court decisions and will affirm. Westchester Fire argues that we are dealing with two reinsurance programs: one being the Comprehensive Catastrophe Treaty. Which was made up of six essentially identical contracts covering different time periods in effect from 1972 1985 inclusive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-1213.htm">01-1213 -- U.S. V. FABIANO -- 07/18/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant appellant John Fabiano appeals the district court's decision to deny him relief pursuant to his motion to vacate. Fabiano was convicted of two counts of knowingly receiving visual depictions of child pornography. He was sentenced to twenty four months' imprisonment followed by three years' supervised release. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. <u>United States v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061051np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm.1 Spradlin filed a complaint in December 2002 against the Borough of Danville. Granted in full or in part defendants' motions.2 The Court listed the The parties are already familiar with the facts of this case. Given the fact Appellant was then and continues to be denied due process?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-40687.0.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. Joe Jordan and several codefendants were indicted on five counts related to cocaine distribution. The other charges against him were dismissed. The plea agreement noted that the applicable statutory minimum sentence for Jordan's charge was a prison term of ten years.2 The agreement further stated that Jordan agreed to waive his right to appeal. The magistrate judge again confirmed that a statutory minimum of ten years was applicable. The judge then asked Jordan whether he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Lisa M. Of counsel on the brief was Daniel I.S.J. With him on the brief was Sue Ellen Wooldridge. The threshold question in this case is whether the Navajo Nation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1393.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Myers & Cook were on brief. P.C. was on brief. Roberts noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/011047P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Anna Lloyd was a passenger on this flight. Because Lloyd was an international passenger. 2 it was liable to the passenger in contract. Lloyd was seated near the back of the airplane at the time of the crash. Her leg was punctured and scraped by the bolts from an airplane seat. Lloyd was treated for these injuries and smoke inhalation. Which is what she had planned to do before the accident. She testified that she was anxious and nervous that semester and struggled to get good grades. Her cumulative grade point average for the 1999 fall semester was higher than her grade point average before the accident. The three intercarrier agreements are related. These agreements were drafted by the International Air Transport Association. That the condition was caused by Lloyd's experiences during the airplane crash. Harris stated that the physical injuries to Lloyd's legs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1365.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. From which it might have paid a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1287.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge appellant Emilio Cotto Aponte (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-1023.htm">01-1023 -- VIGIL V. ZAVARAS -- 07/23/2002<BR></A><BR>
Is currently serving a twenty four year sentence in Colorado state prison for committing sexual assault in the first degree and committing a violent crime with a deadly weapon while committing first degree sexual assault. Arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the jury that convicted him considered evidence beyond that produced at trial. Was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33DAA86C85AF72D08825723E005EE5E6/$file/0455396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: First Alliance Mortgage Company was driven into bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation by well publicized and justified allegations of fraudulent lending practices. One is a class action on behalf of First Alliance's borrowers seeking to impose liability for aiding and abetting the fraudulent scheme engaged in by First Alliance. (This group of unsecured creditors is essentially the same as the group of borrowers asserting their claims of fraud against First Alliance. As is explained in more detail below. These two separate actions were handled together by the same district court and have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. First Alliance Mortgage Company First Alliance was a lender in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30373.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appeal is premature and is hereby dismissed. Which is not a party in this case. One of those drivers was Defendant Arthur Wynn. Wynn was under General contract with Farr and was not an employee of First Coast. A bobtail is a truck without a trailer and the insurance was designed to cover those times when the truck was being used for non business related transportation. The Redland policy excluded coverage for any time that the truck was being used for the business purposes of the leaser. 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. Wynn dropped off the container that he was hauling in New Orleans. Who advised him that there was no return load available for him that afternoon. He was involved in an automobile accident with Plaintiff John Mahaffey. Alleging that Wynn caused the accident and that First Coast was vicariously liable for Wynn's actions. Redland was not a party. Holding that First Coast was not vicariously liable for Wynn because it did not exercise the right to control Wynn's actions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012633P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thus the IRS was never obligated to provide it. I. Ballard was employed by the IRS from 1967 until his retirement on January 1. The parties agree that at all relevant times Ballard was disabled for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act. The MAP program is designed to plan different assignments for participating employees to improve their chances for promotion. These assignments will require additional travel. I do not believe it is in my best interests to continue to pursue a higher level position. I believe it is to [sic] appropriate for me to take [my doctor's] recommendations into account if I am to have any future.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1944.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 16. Was on brief for the United States. Defendant was indicted and charged with uttering and publishing a forged treasury check and aiding and abetting others in uttering and publishing the check in violation of 18 U.S.C. 510(a)(2) and 2. The back of the refund check was endorsed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-21168.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death. 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. R. 47.5.4. * Plata now seeks a COA from us on the following issues: (1) whether he is entitled to habeas relief based on the State's failure to advise him of his right to consular assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and (2) whether the trial court's refusal to allow evidence of his parole eligibility during sentencing violated his constitutional rights to due process. His remaining claims have been waived. A district court shall entertain a § 2254 application filed by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3297.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054805p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was obligated under the Confirmed Plan of Reorganization to fully fund its Pension Plan to cover an increase in benefits to beneficiaries of so called window pensions in 2000 and 2001 immediately upon Shenango's determination to grant the enhanced benefits. Shenango contends that the Confirmed Plan of Reorganization did not require full funding of the increase in benefits at the time the decision was made to grant the window pensions. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. ] shall have any funding obligations to the Pension Plan as a result of this section 4.04(h). No benefit increases may be provided for any participants in the Pension Plan who are not Class 4B Claimants. The total benefits to be paid to the window pension recipients were valued at $1. A second window pension was considered. Who was also on the Pension Board as the retiree representative. The benefits under this second window pension were valued at $766. The Class 4B retirees asserted that full funding was required under the terms of § 4.04(h) of the Reorganization Plan at the time the determination was made to grant this second window pension to non Class 4B retirees.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1568.html">TRINTEC INDUSTRIES, INC V. TOP-USA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendant appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3200203F0C7FC3AF88256FCB007A8815/$file/0273556.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. GONZALES 3469 1632.1 We conclude that Minasyan is a derivative citizen of the United States pursuant to that provision. Is thus not subject to removal as a felon convicted of an aggravated offense. First entered the United States with his family when he was eight. He obtained lawful permanent resident status when he was ten. When he was fourteen. Minasyan was arrested on charges of first degree burglary and Under former INA § 321(a). Or (2) The naturalization of the surviving parent if one of the parents is deceased. Or (3) The naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents or the naturalization of the mother if the child was born out of wedlock and the paternity of the child has not been established by legitimation. If (4) Such naturalization takes place while such child is unmarried and under the age of eighteen years. (5) Such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent last naturalized under clause (1) of this subsection.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1258.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Nancy J. Claims 1 and 15 are the only claims on appeal. Which comprises rubbing into the scalp the ointment wherein the active ingredient </p> <p>8 hydroxy quinoline sulfate 0.3% is carried in a petrolatum and lanolin base.". Are suspect because ". Baldness is generally accepted in the art as being incurable . . . .". Offered no proof that such an off set occurs and has disclosed that this is only speculation.". Scalp is the skin of the head.". There is no per se requirement for clinical evidence to establish the utility of any invention". The examples in Cortright's application are objective evidence. Cortright did not prevail because the board found a new ground for rejecting the claims: that they are based on a non enabling disclosure in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112. The board explained that claim 1 is not enabled because it claims ". That is. The board's rejection was not based on complete non enablement. There is no evidence of record that the resultant hair growth is due to (i) the stimulation of the papilla.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-14701.man.html">ERNIE HAIRE FORD, INC. V. FORD MOTOR CO. (8/8/2001, NO. 00-14701)<BR></A><BR>
III (the Haires) are shareholders of Ernie Haire Ford. Florida.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/983747P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants argue on appeal that their convictions and sentences are invalid. Sr. was arrested in San Diego. Call forwarding to insure that users were able to contact the location from which the sales were being made. The volume of cocaine sold was much less than the volume of heroin. Was promoted to an order taker and later was given the responsibility of mixing the heroin at several locations. Jr. monitored the operation's activities when his father was out of town purchasing heroin. 000 calls were logged in a three month period. Sr.'s niece took over the North Grand operation after Thomas was no longer available. Which was contained in Frazier. The remaining four defendants who appeal here were tried together beginning in late July 1998. The property at which AM PM Towing was located. Some of the defendants also argue their convictions are invalid because they were based on the verdict of only eleven jurors. We conclude for the reasons stated below that the defendants' convictions are valid. To succeed on appeal a defendant must show that he was clearly prejudiced by the joint trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-4342.man.html">CHANDLER V. MOORE (1/30/2001, NO. 99-4342)<BR></A><BR>
Chandler indicated to the officers that he was in the Steinberger's neighborhood checking on his ex girlfriend's house at the time Mr. Chandler called Officer Redstone and inquired whether the police were going to arrest him. Chandler replied that they [the victims] were ordered out of the house. When the officers queried whether the victims might have resisted. Chandler speculated that the victims would not have resisted if the murderer placed a knife to the wife's throat. Chandler further stated that the victims were probably killed for the $150. Chandler would have known this information from an examination of the victims' bank account record. Chandler stated that if he were the officers. He again spoke to Officer Redstone and told him a story of two hit men who were the likely murderers. He posited that the victims were connected to the murder of a man named Gill. Their murders were a retaliation for their involvement with Gill's murder. Chandler also stated that he thought the murder weapon was discarded in a body of water.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054438np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the District Court's order and remand for further proceedings. Jackman was indicted on firearms possession charges and pleaded guilty in February 2002. He was sentenced to a 262 month prison term for his crimes. Jackman now appeals.1 The District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the claims it contained were barred because Jackman had not first overturned his conviction. The entirety of the District Court's analysis consists of the following: We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We understand the District Court to have read Jackman's multiple allegations as a single malicious prosecution claim. This is problematic. This is significant because Heck only bars claims which
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-8899.man.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (9/30/1999, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR>
Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1764.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellee. This is an appeal by Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund and its Trustees. Also before this Court are several procedural and jurisdictional issues. Holding that the partial summary judgment is appealable as an injunction. A cursory review of the background and facts leading to the summary judgment is all that is needed to discuss the preliminary issues. The relevant facts will be outlined in turn. 1. The Fund The Fund is the sponsor of a multi employer. It was created pursuant to an Agreement and Declaration of Trust. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTY3MjVfc28ucGRm/04-6725_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-6195.man.html">TAYLOR V. ADAMS (8/11/2000, NO. 99-6195)<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="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May19/98-20385-CV3.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054321p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/011814P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the MHTC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. She was the only female in her unit. Kipp applied for and was denied a promotion. Alleging that she was not promoted because of her gender. Towne was moved to write the letter because she was angry with Ms. Kipp was employed. At that time
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-2307.opn.html">MURATORE V. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (8/15/2000, NO. 99-2307)<BR></A><BR>
1215 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun17/98-20385-CV3.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun11/03-21119-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that even though RIMSA is not a party to the arbitration agreement. We have appellate jurisdiction and RIMSA is entitled to a mandatory stay because WM's claims against RIMSA are based on the same operative facts. Are inherently inseparable from those against Onyx. The present suit could have a critical impact on the pending arbitration. Which was RIMSA's parent company at the time. Bethlehem was entitled to draw on the security if an authorized Bethlehem officer certified that RIMSA was in default on the lease. Alleging that such action was justified by Bethlehem's failure to properly maintain the equipment under the contract. Counterclaim dispute was not subject to the arbitration agreement between it and WM because it involved the Letter that was solely between RIMSA and WM. At the same time it was asserting its breach of contract counterclaim before the ICC. WM sued RIMSA in Texas state court to collect against the monies it had paid on the Letter. filed a The case was removed to federal court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-7097.htm">01-7097 -- U.S. V. SPARKS -- 05/24/2002<BR></A><BR>
The bag was on the edge of the road beside a tinhorn and was in plain view as he approached. The decision was made to prepare a decoy bag. Sparks' truck was impounded and inventoried by law enforcement officials. From the location where the bag was found and Sparks was arrested. It was common for drug dealers to maintain in their residences paraphernalia and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D3D92C93F0B5E9088256C2B004F61E0/$file/9816545.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Part of which is still pending. Were eligible for Hawaii's QUEST medical coverage. Have concluded after bench trials with awards of compensatory damages and are the subject of the current consolidated appeal. CHANDLER 13123 conclusion that the class plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages. We hold that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Group members also had to have an income no greater than 100% of the federal poverty level and assets not in excess of $2. The State extended medical and dental benefits to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7093b.html">KEEFE COMPANY V. AMERICABLE INTERNATIONAL<BR></A><BR>
With him </p> <p>on the briefs were Thomas C. With him </p> <p>on the brief was Gaela K. We have heretofore vacat </p> <p>ed the decision insofar as it was based on invalidity. We vacate </p> <p>the judgment of the district court as to a portion of appel </p> <p>lant's claims and remand for further proceedings consistent </p> <p>with this opinion and that of the District of Columbia Court of </p> <p>Appeals.</p> <p>Analysis</p> <p>Except insofar as it is necessary to make our application of </p> <p>the law understandable. We will not rehash the facts underly </p> <p>ing this controversy as they are set forth in full in Keefe Co. </p> <p>v. That those that </p> <p>were due within three years next preceding its filing of this </p> <p> </p> <p>1 Judge Wald was on the original panel but had left the court by </p> <p>the time this matter was decided and therefore did not participate </p> <p>in this decision.</p> <p>action were still viable. It is well established that we </p> <p>treat the District of Columbia as a state for purposes of the </p> <p>Erie Doctrine.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/983747P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants argue on appeal that their convictions and sentences are invalid. Sr. was arrested in San Diego. Call forwarding to insure that users were able to contact the location from which the sales were being made. The volume of cocaine sold was much less than the volume of heroin. Was promoted to an order taker and later was given the responsibility of mixing the heroin at several locations. Jr. monitored the operation's activities when his father was out of town purchasing heroin. 000 calls were logged in a three month period. Sr.'s niece took over the North Grand operation after Thomas was no longer available. Which was contained in Frazier. The remaining four defendants who appeal here were tried together beginning in late July 1998. The property at which AM PM Towing was located. Some of the defendants also argue their convictions are invalid because they were based on the verdict of only eleven jurors. We conclude for the reasons stated below that the defendants' convictions are valid. To succeed on appeal a defendant must show that he was clearly prejudiced by the joint trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1406.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rudman LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. The SEC cross appeals from the portion of the district court's judgment imposing sanctions against the SEC for refusing to stipulate until mid trial that no telephone call to Happ was made from the office of the SEC's main witness on June 25. Happ was a Director. One was that shipments had been impacted for the second quarter due to a jurisdictional dispute between the United States Departments of Commerce and State with respect to export of some products. Hanley testified that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5100o.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the petition was John S. Of counsel on the petition were David W. With her on the response were Peter D. ORDER A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by the Cross Appellant. A response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellant. The matter was referred first as petition for panel rehearing to the panel that heard the appeal. Thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who were authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the appeal en banc1. A poll was requested. IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for rehearing is denied. (2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. After the voting deadline had expired in this matter. 1 (3) The mandate of the court will issue on September 28. The panel majority holds that there is no jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims or any other court of a Takings claim for compensation for unauthorized use by the government of a patented invention. This ruling is contrary to decision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-6204.htm">00-6204 -- HAWKINS V. MULLIN -- 05/22/2002<BR></A><BR>
Which is not a specifically enumerated felony supporting a first degree murder conviction under Oklahoma law. We hold that the Oklahoma appellate court's interpretation was not unforeseeable and therefore did not deprive Hawkins of due process. Were also in the car at the time. His original plan was to kidnap Thompson and hold her for ransom. Were staying with the couple at that time. <p> At the house. 2) Thompson's murder was especially heinous. Hawkins is a continuing threat to society. Hawkins will be entitled to habeas relief only if he can establish that the state courts' resolution of his claims was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/002716P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Erickson was demoted from his managerial position to a sales job. Erickson argues that he presented sufficient direct evidence of discrimination to place the burden on Farmland to prove that it would have demoted him for legitimate reasons. He also contends that even if he has the burden of proving the demotion was discriminatory. He has carried that burden by showing the reasons Farmland gave for its action were pretextual. We affirm the judgment of the district court.1 Farmland is a farmer owned cooperative association that provides supplies and services to its members through local co ops. The job was not a managerial position. RFMs were required to supervise other Farmland employees working in the RFM's region. RFMs were also responsible for integrating sales programs with other programs Farmland was developing at the local co ops. Erickson was under the supervision of regional vice president Drue Sander. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 was likely to evolve from merely focusing on retail development to directly supervising the sales force within the geographic area.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-3049.htm">01-3049 -- U.S. V. TURNER -- 04/02/2002<BR></A><BR>
A partial latent left thumbprint found at the scene of the second robbery was the only physical evidence linking Mr. We have jurisdiction over Mr. They were the only remaining customers when the restaurant closed. Testified at trial on behalf of the government.<sup></sup><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052968p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the District Court The statutes of conviction are 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). Will affirm on all three issues. I. Price was arrested along with two other men while sitting in a parked car in a parking lot in Philadelphia. Drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in the car. When the car was subsequently searched. Drugs and a gun were found in the trunk. There were several officers in the vicinity of the parking lot that night. Relevant to this case were Bonett. Who was hiding in and around other cars in the lot. Who were waiting nearby in an unmarked car. Chiarolanza and Lacorte were part of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052968np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will affirm on all three issues. I. Price was arrested along with two other men while sitting in a parked car in a parking lot in Philadelphia. Drugs and drug paraphernalia were found in the car. The statutes of conviction are 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). The District Court resentenced Price nunc pro tunc to allow him to convert his petition to a direct appeal. 2 1 when the car was subsequently searched. Drugs and a gun were found in the trunk. There were several officers in the vicinity of the parking lot that night. Relevant to this case were Bonett. Who was hiding in and around other cars in the lot. Who were waiting nearby in an unmarked car. Chiarolanza and Lacorte were part of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/011313U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found the action was barred by the statute of limitations provisions of the treaty popularly known as the Warsaw Convention.1 We affirm. Was injured as the plane landed in Minneapolis/St. While that action was pending. The Redls argue that the district court erred and that the limitations period in the Warsaw Convention should be equitably tolled for the time their case was pending in state court. The parties have waived oral argument. Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact remains. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived. The method of calculating the period of limitation is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2587C1D5ACFFBD8288256F89005E28D3/$file/0410241.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which provides for such an increase when a defendant was previously deported after conviction of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/254C5DFF245EF9B888256EA7006AB24C/$file/0217051.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Berzon *This case was submitted for decision without oral argument. 7071 7074 MCCALLA v. Circuit Judge: The primary question in this case is whether revising a judgment to include mandatory prejudgment interest is a correction of a clerical error within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). We hold that such a motion is not a correction of a clerical error. Is instead an alteration or amendment of the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The district court granted Vincent McCalla's postjudgment motion for prejudgment interest although the motion was made nearly three years after judgment was entered. ROYAL MACCABEES LIFE INSURANCE 7075 I The facts underlying the substantive dispute in this case are unimportant to the present appeal. Royal Maccabees sought to rescind the policy on the ground that McCalla's omissions were fraudulent. A jury found that the omissions were not fraudulent and issued a verdict for $236. The district court entered the following stipulation: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through their respective counsel herein.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2475A985C13BB02B88256F0E0056E008/$file/0372100.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because Reyes's asylum claim was denied as untimely. We have jurisdiction. Reyes is a homosexual male with a female sexual identity. Reyes is currently in custody. Where he is held separately from the other inmates for his own protection. When Reyes was thirteen and living with his family in San Salvador. He was kidnaped by a group of men. Raped and beaten because of his homosexual orientation.1 Reyes's attackers threatened future brutality if he It is not clear from the record whether Reyes's female sexual appearance was fully manifest at this age. For which he was targeted. His transsexual behavior are intimately connected. As we have recognized. It is well accepted among social scientists that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/006105P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eric Barnes (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/003315P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brought an action or appeal in federal court that was frivolous. Or failed to state a claim and because Higgins is not under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The appeals of Higgins and Carpenter have been consolidated with an appeal by the defendants in the § 1983 suit brought by Arkansas inmate Reginald Early. We conclude that the court's analysis in Ayers was incorrect because § 1915(g) need survive only a rational basis test. Both actions were dismissed by the District Court based on res judicata and we summarily affirmed both dismissals. Arguing Higgins was trying to raise the same issues as in Higgins I. Alleging that he was denied exercise for forty six days while locked down in administrative segregation and that on three occasions security personnel refused to take him to medical appointments for hand and skin problems and a lower leg sore. He was granted IFP status because his prison account statement reflected a sizable negative balance. The District Court 3 acknowledged that Early had three prior strikes and was not alleging that he was in imminent danger.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1860.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief. The sole issue to be decided in this appeal concerns the limitations period that applies to such actions.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1802.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellees. </SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21A8DC106D421CC188256E5A00707C98/$file/0056233.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs' blood samples were drawn by American Forensic Nurses (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1530.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Labinger</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5118.html">FISHER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1527.html">E.L. HAMM & ASSOCIATES, INC. V. ENGLAND<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Michael L. Argued for <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. <span class=SpellE>Keisler</span></u>. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Mark R. It was entitled to $135. 930.18 for additional policing work because of a defect in the specification whereby the government understated the policing acreage.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Although the Board found that the contract between the Navy and Hamm was defective as to the policing acreage. It denied Hamm s claim for an equitable adjustment based on its finding that Hamm was not misled by the defect.<span
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001497P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pickens was injured when a train's braking system malfunctioned. Pickens was unable to continue working for three years. He was unable to resume his duties as a conductor. Pickens worked as a switchman for three days before concluding the job was too strenuous and refusing to continue working in the position. Pickens found that working four days per week was too strenuous. This was the railroad's policy. It was the first time Soo Line had required Pickens to procure a release. One of the questions included in the release asked Pickens' physician whether he was able to return to full time duty. He wrote in part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/95-2914.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DABBS (2/6/1998, NO. 95-2914)<BR></A><BR>
PST mailed certificates at random to prospective customers declaring that the recipient was eligible to receive one of four allegedly valuable awards. The merchant bank is only entitled to recoup its loss from the business. Lacks sufficient funds or is no longer a functioning enterprise. Studies have shown that telemarketing companies generate a substantially greater risk of charge backs. When the inspector called a third time to tell her that Barnett had discovered the scheme and advised him that factoring was illegal. Susan Dabbs falsely told the inspector that they were not violating the law and instructed the inspector to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1249.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Richard H. With him on the brief were Edward A. Is the assignee of U.S. That those three claims were invalid. The district court subsequently denied Northpoint's motion for judgment as a matter of law (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/cc589918cc7238d088256e5a00707d17/$FILE/0010570.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that because his prior theft offense sentence was suspended. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Echavarria was convicted of the felony offense of theft. His sentence was later suspended. He 14752 was placed on probation not to exceed 36 months. Because Echavarria is not a citizen of the United States. He was detained by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5161a.html">PUB CTZN HLTH RSRCH V. FDA<BR></A><BR>
With <p> <p> <p> her on the briefs were <i>Wilma A. With her on <p> the brief was <i>Brian Wolfman. Powell</i> was on the brief for amicus curiae <p> Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.<p> <p> Before: Ginsburg. Public Citizen argued that the documents could <p> not be withheld under that exemption and that in any event <p> disclosure was required under 21 U.S.C. 355(<i>l</i>). Human) tests showing that the drug is <p> safe and effective. <i>See</i> 21 U.S.C. 355(a). Arguing that although a search <p> of its database identified 230 INDs for which the agency had <p> received safety reports and which were either withdrawn. It could not <p> <p> <p> without an unduly burdensome manual search of each file <p> determine which of these were discontinued
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-5136.htm">99-5136 -- WEBCO INDUSTRIES INC. V. THERMATOOL CORP. -- 01/18/2002<BR></A><BR>
That these claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The claim for breach of the performance guarantee was tried to a jury. Contending the court erred in ruling that the contract and UCC claims were barred. Asserting that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Webco's claim to enforce the performance guarantee and. That Webco's damages on that claim should have been limited to the purchase price of the machine. Remand for further proceedings. <p> <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>The background facts set out here are relevant to Thermatool's argument on appeal that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Webco's claim under the performance guarantee. <em>See </em>Part III.A. Webco was at full capacity and wanted a new mill to broaden its production line and customer base. Who was vice president for technical services with Webco at the time. Obermark that Thermatool was interested and anxious to build the machine and that the Thermatool engineering department was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1F6E7456F915061D88256D5C005335BD/$file/0070157o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35 3. Except to the extent adopted by the en banc court. *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/97-3458.man.html">WRIGHT V. SOUTHLAND CORP. (9/3/1999, NO. 97-3458)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that direct evidence of employment discrimination is evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude. That an adverse employment action was taken against the plaintiff on the basis of a protected personal characteristic. Wright was the manager of a 7 11 convenience store in Kissimmee. At which time he was discharged.</P> <P> The Southland Corporation owner of the 7 11 chain asserts that it fired Wright because of continuing merchandise control problems. Wright argues that he was discharged in retaliation for his filing of a claim of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2404.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was corrupted by the lure of drug money. He was convicted by a jury of three federal crimes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051623np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the judgment of the District Court. Although the claims against Anderko and Wheeler are before us on denials of summary judgment. Which are not generally appealable. This appeal is properly before us because the issue in the District Court was appellants' entitlement to qualified immunity. Thus
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-2858.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Securities Grp. 1980 United States Court of Appeals. BACKGROUND A. Facts The appellants are former limited partners in three New York limited partnerships: The Securities Group (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
LUI were consolidated. As the removed action was essentially a counterclaim to the claims initially brought in federal court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The two attractions contemplated were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Randolph George was convicted by a jury on two felony counts of willful filing of false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Are receivership1
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Demissie was on brief for petitioner.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Vertigan contends that there was no substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Administrative Law Judge's (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was to be paid
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court nevertheless ordered restitution at the behest of a private party who claimed it was damaged by the defendants' criminal misconduct. FACTS Defendants were convicted on charges arising out of the payment of kickbacks during the years 1991 to 1994 on contracts involving the maintenance and repair of three United States Navy aircraft carriers based at the North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado. Defendant Stanley was. Who was responsible for overseeing Pac Ship's contracts with both subcontractors and Navy. Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court nevertheless ordered restitution at the behest of a private party who claimed it was damaged by the defendants' criminal misconduct. FACTS Defendants were convicted on charges arising out of the payment of kickbacks during the years 1991 to 1994 on contracts involving the maintenance and repair of three United States Navy aircraft carriers based at the North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado. Defendant Stanley was. Who was responsible for overseeing Pac Ship's contracts with both subcontractors and Navy. Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Contending that because his prior theft offense sentence was suspended. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Echavarria was convicted of the felony offense of theft. His sentence was later suspended. He 14752 was placed on probation not to exceed 36 months. Because Echavarria is not a citizen of the United States. He was detained by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (
|
|
UNITED STATES V. ZINN (2/14/2003, NO. 02-10782)
Zinn pled guilty to possessing child pornography and was sentenced to imprisonment to be followed by a period of supervised release. Or are employed. Carry on a vocation or are a student as directed by your probation officer. The probation officer will provide State officials with all information required under Florida Sexual Predators and Sexual Offender Notification and Registration Statutes and [may] direct you to report to these agencies personally for required additional processing such as photographic. Fingerprinting and DNA collection.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that the Take Statement is invalid because: (1) the withdrawal of a portion of the BiOp leaves the Incidental Take Statement without an underlying factual predicate. (2) the Incidental Take Statement presents a nonnumerical measure of take without explaining why no number was provided. ALLEN statute was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction. Or carried out
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Astrue is substituted for his predecessor Jo Anne B. Circuit Judge: Leo Orn filed an application for Social Security benefits claiming that he was unable to work because of disability. The Administrative Law Judge (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The plaintiffs are a local labor organization. Who were involved in a get out the vote campaign preceding the 2004 presidential election. Is one of a number of municipalities in Allegheny County that regulate door to door canvassing and solicitation. Individuals must present photo identification and the following information in writing: 316.1 The name and the home address of the individual or individuals who will be canvassing in the Municipality. 316.2 The dates and hours during which the individual(s) will canvass in the Municipality. 316.3 The locations in which the individual(s) will canvass in the Municipality. There is a $50 fee for each solicitation permit. Which is waived for those persons soliciting only one time within any calendar year. The police chief must issue the permit if the information is complete and the requisite fees are paid.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because no material issue of fact was raised reflecting confusion between the marks. We also hold that the discovery rulings were well within the bounds of the court's discretion. Approximately thirty to fifty percent of Plaintiff's wares are emblazoned with the Surfvivor mark alone. Surfvivor goods are primarily sold to Hawaiian consumers through the local university. The Survivor mark is emblazoned on a wide range of consumer merchandise. Is often accompanied by the words
|
|
SPRAYTEX V. DJS&T
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We held that crimes directed toward an individual violate the Hobbs Act only if
|
|
FARROW V. WEST (2/7/2003, NO. 01-13846)
Farrow was an inmate in the Alabama prison system. West extracted some of Farrow's teeth.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. BACKGROUND
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Collora were on brief. Was on brief. Petitioner argued that (1) the trial court's denial of defense counsel's motion for a continuance at the beginning of the trial was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for co appellees Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Gerardo Acevedo.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Thus that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.1 I [1] Bayliss asserts that her due process rights were violated. She contends that the ALJ was preoccupied with whether her attorney properly disclosed a doctor's report. Was `so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.'
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was the owner of an aging stadium with a leaky roof. If the parties were not satisfied with the architect's resolution of the problem. The project was to be completed by September 1. There is some indication in the record that Thomas & Parker had difficulty maintaining its authorization to apply XYPEX. 22 1 of the roof with XYPEX. An arbitration proceeding was scheduled for December 15 17. (2) that the district's claims were barred by laches and waiver because of the delay in bringing the claim and because the district's proceeding with remedial work before arbitration commenced made it impossible to determine whether Thomas & Parker had fulfilled its contractual obligations. Concluding that the dispute was appropriate for arbitration and that neither laches nor waiver applied. That the outpatient procedure was relatively minor. Which appellants argue is a condition precedent to arbitration. The appellants now contend that although the issue was appropriate for resolution by the arbitrator under the doctrine of procedural arbitrability.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Spellman Professional Corporation were on brief. This claim was dismissed by the district court on defendants' motion for summary judgment after finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Alwyn reported to the Concord Police Department that two of her children were missing. Officer Duval was dispatched to the Alwyns' home. Asked the Alwyns whether he could search the house because
|
|
00-6024 -- NEILL V. GIBSON -- 12/07/2001
Circuit Judges.
|
|
GENERAL ELECTRIC V. NINTENDO
With him on the brief were Edward R. With him on the brief were John J. Of counsel on the brief were Charles P. GE is the assignee of three patents: United States Patent No. 4. All three of these patents are directed to television control circuitry. Nintendo counterclaimed that the '899 patent was invalid as anticipated. The appeal was submitted for our decision following oral argument on October 8. The '659 patent is directed to a synchronization signal generator for use in video source equipment such as television cameras and video record players. The '125 patent is directed to devices for retrieving stored picture information from the memory of a computer and displaying that information on a standard television screen or other display device. The NES and SNES systems are video game systems that display their games on television monitors. The Gameboy is a hand held video game system with a built in screen display. Nintendo filed summary judgment motions asserting non infringement by each of its products of the three patents in suit and further asserting that Claims 12 through 14 of the '899 patent.
|
|
ENG'G CONTRACTORS ASS'N OF SOUTH FLORIDA V. METRO. DADE COUNTY
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Eng'g Contractors Ass'n of South Florida v. Is drawn primarily from the district court's thorough opinion. UNDISPUTED FACTS<p> <p> Three affirmative action programs enacted by the Dade County Board of Commissioners are at issue in this appeal: (1) the Black Business Enterprise (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044092p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is not a prerequisite to conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (actual or attempted persuasion of a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity) or 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (traveling for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity). 2 We also reject the myriad other attacks Defendant Todd Tykarsky makes on his conviction. Fifth and Eighth Amendment challenges to the statutes under which he was convicted. We will affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing. Tykarsky is a resident of Trenton. In the same chat room was Special Agent Nester. Special Agent Nester sent him a photograph of herself that was taken when she was approximately 14 or 15 years old. Tykarsky wrote that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/118676828955366188256EE6005591E8/$file/0370342.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They claim that they were persecuted in Fiji because of their mixed race. In part because much of the violence was instigated. I. Althea Faruk is Christian and native Fijian. Mohammed Faruk is a Muslim of Indo Fijian heritage. There are strong racial tensions in Fiji: According to the State Department Report in the record. Almost all of whom are Christian. Most of whom are Hindu or Muslim. Who was also his employer. Mohammed and Althea knew that they were being closely watched. Mohammed and Althea were afraid that if they continued their relationship. An American pastor who was going to Fiji volunteered to perform their wedding ceremony in Fiji. In early 1993 they were married in secret in Fiji. They wanted to remain in Fiji because it was home and they hoped that things would be better once they were married. Mohammed was fired from his job at the family business. When Althea was home alone. He stood to the side when he saw how violent Althea's native Fijian attackers were. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (2000).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2545.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Horodyski</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2478.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044031np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dolab's application solely because he determined that she was not credible. Some of these findings have no basis in the record. Though this is a close case. We find that there is substantial evidentiary support for the IJ's denial of Ms. We will deny the Petition for Review. Dolab removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because she was an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/37773a844398187e88256ae20059e9ca/$FILE/0015058.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where they are examined by metal detectors and their possessions are x rayed. Globe argued that Dazo's state law claims were preempted by the Warsaw Convention. Holding that the theft occurred while Dazo was in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2097.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/100D75881883DBAE88256E58007285A8/$file/0117059.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. 3290 CHURCHILL VILLAGE v. Although some were sold to individual consumers. The dishwashers were considered
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/93-5253.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. TAMAYO<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Was convicted for laundering money in violation of 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/98-5915.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ (2/12/2001, NO. 98-5915)<BR></A><BR>
Martinez's appeal raises an issue of first impression in our Circuit: Can a district court exercise equitable jurisdiction over a Rule 41(e) motion filed after criminal proceedings have ended? Our answer is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/99-11190.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MALDONADO-RAMIREZ (6/26/2000, NO. 99-11190)<BR></A><BR>
We hold that the sentencing provisions applied to Maldonado Ramirez are unambiguous and we affirm the adjustment to his offense level based on his prior convictions.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-8899.ma3.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR>
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/993942P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 whether Hanes's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in preparation for trial.3 We affirm. Hanes admitted to being at the apartment at the time of the This is our characterization of the issue. The right to appeal is governed by the COA requirements found at 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Whether the habeas petition was filed in the district court pre or post AEDPA. Claimed that Sprouse committed the murder while Hanes was waiting outside the front door to discuss a business deal with Barlow and that he did not know what Sprouse used to kill Barlow. The key evidence against Hanes was police testimony that he told police that Energine was used to kill Barlow. 4 and that only after Hanes provided this information were the police able to determine the exact cause of death. Because Hanes's habeas petition was filed in 1995 before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This appeal is subject to pre AEDPA standards of review.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7178a.html">NOVECON LTD V. BULGARIAN-AMERICAN ENTERPRISE FUND<BR></A><BR>
McFadden argued the cause for appellants. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was John M. With him on the briefs was Gary H. ) are private firms engaged in developing busi </p> <p>ness projects in Bulgaria. Plaintiff Richard Rahn is president of both compa </p> <p>nies. Ronald Utt is their managing director. ) </p> <p>is a not for profit corporation established pursuant to the </p> <p>Support for East European Democracy Act. Defendant Frank </p> <p>Bauer is the Fund's president and defendant Nancy Schiller </p> <p>is the managing director of its Chicago office.</p> <p>A</p> <p>In 1991. The correspondence contemplated </p> <p>that the Batsov family would have a 26 percent stake in the </p> <p>building complex. Was written on May 20. It </p> <p>stated that the Fund was ". This list is not exhaustive </p> <p>[but] should provide an overview of the role that [Novecon] </p> <p>will have.". The Fund was willing to compen </p> <p>sate Novecon with the sum of $200. This document is fairly comprehensive. Undoubtedly </p> <p>there will be some need to clarify certain points now or as we </p> <p>proceed.".
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-6454.htm">00-6454 -- U.S. V. EATON -- 09/20/2001<BR></A><BR>
Agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/031896p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when prison officials sought a state court order authorizing them to force feed him after he went nine days without eating. We will affirm. Allegedly because he was not receiving legal material.3 He made threats. Was placed on further restriction even though he was already in the SMU. Walker claims to have begun a religious fast which he planned to continue for three to fifteen days. Walker was seen at least daily by prison medical staff. Walker was incarcerated in the Special Management Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/023927p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The immigration judge informed Barker orally: I have granted you voluntary departure for a period of six months. Then you will have to leave the United States. You would have to ask the Immigration Service for that not me. I have no authority to extend that time. . . . Then there will be penalties. Do you have any questions? Written notice was provided to Barker in English and Spanish and that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-9069.opn.html">SCI LIQUIDATING CORP. V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. (7/20/1999, NO. 98-9069)<BR></A><BR>
SCI Liquidating Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/98-5829.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DICKERSON (4/16/2001, NO. 98-5829)<BR></A><BR>
Nelson pled guilty to this conspiracy charge in 1992 and was incarcerated for 58 months. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/001747U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As his reconsidera |
