Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query 407 AND 143 AND Adams returned 154 results.

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

	OPINION/ORDER The appellants argue that they were entitled to judgment in their favor for three reasons: (1) the trial court erred in ruling that appellants violated appellee's Fourth Amendment rights by extending an investigatory encounter based on a community caretaking standard. (3) the appellants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Who are police officers. The complaint indicated that this person was possibly intoxicated and was observed exiting and reentering a vehicle that was parked on a dead end street. Mason City police officers were sent to investigate. Appellee responded that he was waiting for a push to start his car. Appellant Officer Prahm testified that appellee's vehicle was the only vehicle in the area at the time he arrived. The Court finds that the resolution of that fact dispute is not relevant for purposes of this appeal. 2 3 2 locked the passenger side door. Appellant Adams testified that appellee was agitated and evasive when Adams approached the vehicle. Appellee
	OPINION/ORDER Who was standing on a street with a group of people. Williams threw away a loaded firearm and was later found hiding in the bathroom of a stranger's house with marijuana in a nearby bathtub. Because we find that the police did not need reasonable suspicion to approach the parked van in which Williams was bagging marijuana. We will reverse the District Court's suppression order. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over his interlocutory appeal and accordingly will dismiss it. 2004 (the
	OPINION/ORDER It is:
	OPINION/ORDER His petition was timely because the one year period of limitation established in § 2255 did not commence to run until the Supreme Court's recent stop and frisk decision in Florida v. We find it unnecessary to consider whether Hopkins' § 2255 motion was timely. The factual underpinnings of the 1993 prosecution of Hopkins give rise to his present claim that he is entitled to § 2255 relief under the Supreme Court's J.L. decision. Looking as though he was involved in dealing drugs. Hopkins was then arrested for illegal possession of a concealed weapon. Hopkins was indicted in May 1993 in the Western District of Virginia on three separate firearm and drug charges. Hopkins asserted that his motion was nevertheless timely under § 2255 ś6 (3). Because it was based on J.L.'s initial recognition. The district court by its Memorandum Opinion decided that Hopkins' § 2255 motion was untimely and dismissed it. The limitation period shall run from the latest of ... (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER The gun was subsequently suppressed. 120 S.Ct. 1375 (2000) the informant's tip about Valentine and the surrounding circumstances did not provide reasonable suspicion that Valentine was engaged in crime. We will reverse. This case is distinguishable from J.L. and our r ecent decision in United States v. Valentine's acts after the officers ordered him to stop should have been considered. Officers W oodard and Contreras were patrolling near the intersection of Columbia and 18th Avenues in Irvington. The informant said that the gunman was wearing a blue sweat top. He added that the suspect was dark skinned. Was accompanied by a young man. A response that Officer Woodard testified is common. One that is understandable if the informant feared r etribution from the armed man or entanglement with the police. Another was a young male in his twenties. The third was an older man who appeared to be in his sixties. Who were in uniform and in a marked car. Who was about ten feet away. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: When the police have reasonable suspicion that a person committed. Is committing. Or is about to commit a crime. The police have a witness or victim look at the suspect). Unzipping the outer jacket ultimately led the officers to discover that Askew was illegally carrying a gun. Askew's primary argument to this Court is that the initial unzipping of his jacket was an unreasonable search. Where specific findings are lacking. Noticing that Askew was a man with a mustache who
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: City of Richmond police officers stopped and frisked Irvin Mayo while he was walking in a high crime area of Richmond. Concluding that the circumstances were covered by our decision in United States v. Because Burton presented distinguishing facts the officers in Burton conceded that they had
	OPINION/ORDER Defendant Appellant Paul Hodges was indicted on August 2. Hodges was found guilty. Three years' (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The only issue presented to us is the correctness of the district court's denial of Hodges' motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm Hodges' conviction. At 4 (all references to
	OPINION/ORDER Brown argues that he was 2 improperly stopped and searched. Thus the incriminating evidence uncovered by that search was not properly admitted at his trial. Factual Background Our facts are taken from the suppression hearing held by the District Court. Jelena Radenkovic and Lucia Zapatero were walking in the 2100 block of Locust Street in Philadelphia. They were approached by two black male teenagers who attempted to grab Radenkovic's purse. Who was waiting to meet her at a nearby restaurant. Radenkovic told Firth about the attempted robbery Because we reverse on the ground that the stop of Brown was not supported by reasonable suspicion. Who was not identified in the record. While the officer was speaking over the radio and describing one of the suspects as 15 years old and the other as three or four years older. Lucia Zapatero commented that she thought the suspects were older. Who At all other places in the record the suspects are described as running southbound on 22nd Street. This discrepancy in the printout of the radio call is not material for our opinion. 4 2 was sitting in the police car at this point.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Appellant John Michael Perkins was stopped in his vehicle by police officers in St. Perkins was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. West Virginia police department and reported that there were two white males in the front yard of a duplex at 2740 Knox Avenue who were pointing and displaying rifles in various directions. Kemper were patrolling the area in separate units. Albans police department for seven years and was familiar with the Knox Avenue area. A residential street where young children are commonly pres UNITED STATES v. Was a notorious high crime and drug trafficking area. Officer Burdette knew that 2740 Knox Avenue the very unit where the caller had reported the disturbance was one unit in a two unit duplex. Was a known drug house and was presently under investigation for drug activity. He surmised that it was a
	OPINION/ORDER Appellant Rodney Kemp was convicted by a jury on May 18. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Was on routine patrol when he observed a gold colored Lincoln Town Car. He was approximately 30 to 40 yards directly behind Kemp's car when he noticed that one of its tail lights was broken. Buehler recognized that a cracked tail light is a violation of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Code. Denies that his tail light was cracked or broken. That he had a heightened sense of awareness as a result of being in a high crime area that was not well lit. Because the location was not easily accessible to other patrol vehicles. Buehler testified that as he was exiting his vehicle. Wright testified that he also observed that Kemp's driver's side tail light was cracked. Buehler testified that he had difficulty seeing the front seat and the floor of Kemp's car because there was trash and paperwork throughout the car's interior. Because Kemp was wearing a large jacket and kept turning to his side. Did not know what Kemp was doing.
	OPINION/ORDER Taylor filed a motion to suppress drugs and firearms seized from the car he was driving on the ground that the initial stop of the car was not justified. He also contends that the jury instructions pertaining to the firearms offense were erroneous. The informant stated that the Acura was occupied by two black males. He informed Officer Lee that the men were making
	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 This case involves the search of a customer who was patronizing a business. Which police suspected was involved in narcotics trafficking and had armed employees on the premises. Had a felony record and was found to have a gun in his possession. Officers were looking for drugs. A confidential informant tape recorded conversations with Chambers where Chambers threatened the informant by saying that the North Tire employees were armed. Chambers also stated that one of his employees was a convicted felon who was armed. Were at North Tire at the time of the search. She did not see them until they were brought into the customer area. Agent Moore testified that Bearden was wearing a
	OPINION/ORDER We will therefore affirm the District Court's judgment which denied appellant's motion to suppress evidence. I. As the
	97-1095 -- MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/11/1999 GIT's evidence of several of its categories of damages was insufficient. Its claims on behalf of its lower tier subcontractors were premature. This court cannot determine whether any parts of the jury's award were for allowable categories of damages supported by sufficient evidence. The contract price was roughly $9.3 million. GIT's central theory is that its plan to complete the project before the deadline displeased MK. The contract allowed MK to do so if GIT was not prosecuting the work with a diligence that would ensure its timely completion. The subs were demanding payment from GIT. GIT was still involved in litigation with Robinson and had not settled with or paid Bogue or GA Western. Arguing that GIT had changed its damage theory just weeks before trial and was using previously undisclosed documentation. Twelve days before trial. GIT's Alleged Discovery Violation MK argues that GIT's supplemental damage disclosure was subject to mandatory exclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).
	OPINION/ORDER Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger.
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. § 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions.
	01-2027 -- U.S. V. HARRIS -- 10/30/2002 Arguing that: (1) the district court should have suppressed the evidence of his possession of cocaine base on Fourth Amendment grounds. (2) his conviction was supported by insufficient evidence because the Government was not required to prove that he intended to distribute the cocaine base within 1. (3) the district court should have given a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of simple possession. 860 is unconstitutional. (5) the district court should have required the Government to plead and prove his prior felony convictions beyond a reasonable doubt before using those convictions to enhance his sentence. When she looked outside and saw that two men were smoking directly outside the restaurant's drive through window. Madrid called back to the sheriff's department to report that the men were leaving their original location and were walking toward a nearby car wash. Madrid reported were the only men she saw in the restaurant's parking lot at that time. Dason Allen. Received the initial dispatch reporting that two men wearing dark clothing were smoking narcotics in the Dairy Queen parking lot.
	OPINION/ORDER The petition for rehearing en banc is denied as moot. Is hereby withdrawn. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We hold that Guam Customs officers are statutorily authorized to stop any passenger arriving in Guam if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the passenger is violating Guam's drug laws. Drug Enforcement Administration (
	OPINION/ORDER No. 97 4077 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He argues that the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained during and after an investigatory stop. Was alone on patrol. He was working near an area known as the South Eades Street Corridor where several automobile thefts and larcenies recently had occurred. There was no traffic and very little activity in the area. The car was in an
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief. Adequately supports the lower court's conclusion that the officers were lawfully on the premises pursuant to the principal occupant's consent and that they seized the incriminating articles in the course of a permissible security frisk. I was visiting here with my friend. When the operator inquired whether the woman was placing the call surreptitiously. The dispatcher told the officers that he was
	OPINION/ORDER Tyrone Johnson was found guilty of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to forty six months in prison followed by three years supervised release. He appeals the District Court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence on the basis that the evidence was obtained and admitted at trial in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. We will affirm. Nurse further explained that the very same Range Rover was presently parked at 1900 Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia. Who was at the scene. Observing that there was an individual seated in the driver's seat of the vehicle. Johnson was arrested and charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). This motion was denied. Arguing that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him.
	97-4098 -- U.S. V. GAMA-BASTIDAS -- 04/28/1998 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Pursuant to a written plea agreement. Defendant reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the protective search of his person and the search of the vehicle in which he was traveling as a passenger. See Fed. Seizures were constitutional. Challenging the court's refusal to apply section 5C1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
	OPINION/ORDER Richmond Police Department Detective John O'Connor received information from a confidential informant that a black male known as
	OPINION/ORDER Chief Judge: Joseph Christmas was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Christmas subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty and was sentenced to eighty eight months imprisonment. Arguing that an unsolicited tip from a neighbor was not adequate grounds for a Terry stop. Because face to face encounters with informants are altogether different from anonymous tips and because the tip here furnished reasonable suspicion for the protective pat down of defendant. Officers Anthony Smith and Jack Cates were investigating a homicide in the area of Mallard and Queen Streets in Durham. Officer Smith was approached by a neighborhood resident. You need to come and deal with the drugs and the guns that these guys have on the porch two doors down from me.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent
	OPINION/ORDER J.) dismissing Appellant's claim that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when she was strip searched by school officials. J.) granting Appellees summary judgment on her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when she was strip searched by school officials. Because we conclude that the strip search was not justified at its inception. Therefore was unreasonable under the attendant circumstances. They are undisputed. The seniors at Plainville High School were scheduled to attend their senior class picnic at an off campus location. She was legally entitled to possess them since she was over the age of eighteen. Though the record is unclear on the precise timing of when Cipriano held this belief. In which she attested that
	OPINION/ORDER The mandate is issued forthwith. Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Harsimrat Singh and Randhir Singh Khangura were indicted on March 31. Because the seizure was supported by probable cause and passes constitutional muster. Are largely uncontroverted.1 On March 8. The CI further advised Green that the disabled Rig's tractor was silver in color. That it was being driven from Canada to Atlanta by
	01-1053 -- GONZALES V. CITY OF CASTLE ROCK -- 10/15/2002 Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers
	OPINION/ORDER Are as follows: 2 In early February 1993. Who was age 20. The bullets were designed for police use. This type of bullet is referred to as a
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Who was con victed of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 922(g)(1). Next to which he was standing at the time of his arrest. Cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest because at the time of the search the police did not have probable cause to believe he had committed a crime. That the search was permissible as part of a valid investigatory stop and weapons search under the Supreme Court's decisions in Terry v. Officer Allee Rama dhan of the Metropolitan Police Department and his partner were stationed in an area of southeast Washington. He was with a woman who was holding a white plastic bag. Christian himself was holding three cans of deodorant under his arm. Which was open approximately five or six inches. Ramadhan asked whose vehicle it was. Christian said it was his. Because the driver side door was locked. Felt what he thought was a weapon inside. He
	USA V. CHRISTIAN MORRIS USA V. CHRISTIAN MORRIS With him on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Lewis. Who was con victed of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: On page 14. P.C. were on brief for Sea 3. Murphy was on brief for Storage Tank Development Corporation. Anderson and Latti Associates were on briefs for plaintiff. Defendants were the owner of the facility. Storage Tank's and Sea 3's third party claims against Goudreau were omitted from that trial.1 On October 9. Finding him to have been damaged in the amount of $1. I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION Clausen argues that we do not have appellate jurisdiction over Storage Tank's appeal because the district court's December 31. Amended judgment was not an appealable
	99-2201 -- U.S. V. GAECHTER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING INC. -- 07/18/2000 The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This case involves claims for rent and ownership of property originally owned by Harry Garcia that Gaetcher Outdoor Advertising. The court then held a bench trial on Garcia's claim that GOA was unjustly enriched by its failure to make rent payments to Garcia or to the IRS under tax levies against Garcia. We conclude the district court needs to further consider GOA's argument that a portion of Garcia's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. We also conclude that the court erred in determining the amount of postjudgment interest to which Garcia is entitled. The general facts are not disputed. The rent on the lease for the larger billboard was $23. The rent for the smaller one was $1. Before the second year's rents were due. Although GOA contends it is disputed whether it made the 1987 rent payment. It is undisputed that GOA did not make any payments for use of the property to either Garcia or the IRS from 1989 to 1995. To determine who was entitled to the funds and to the deed to the property.
	OPINION/ORDER The government argues that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. The search warrant was supported by probable cause. J.) ruling that a tip from an informant was insufficiently corroborated to provide reasonable suspicion to stop defendant Vamond Elmore's car. She told Roncinske that Elmore was in possession of some weapons and expressed concern that the he might
	UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1689.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brett Huston are police officers for the City of Milwaukee Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953004.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/987.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. The facts are set forth in detail in the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina on direct appeal. Warden of Central Prison where Ward is incarcerated. We will refer to French as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-4179.htm">98-4179 -- OLIVER V. WOODS -- 04/17/2000<BR></A><BR> Was subsequently arrested for refusing to identify himself. The district court determined Officers Woods and Scow were not entitled to qualified immunity. Which signaled the Centerville Police anytime an infrared beam across the driveway into Dave's was broken. Centerville Police Officer James Woods was aware of the problems at Dave's. It was near dawn. Because it was standard procedure for a backup officer to respond. Oliver explained he was there to drop off his car and asked if it was a crime to park a vehicle or if he had broken the law. Officer Woods replied it was not a violation of the law to park a vehicle. Which provides: <p> A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name. Oliver then told Officer Woods to step aside because he was leaving. Oliver he was not free to leave. Oliver. <p> Officer Scow was already en route to Dave's when he was notified by the dispatcher that the suspect had<strong> </strong>left the scene and Officer Woods had called for backup. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D7A541AAE329511788256E2800827F29/$file/0230185.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Responding to a complaint that a man was brandishing a firearm in an apartment building. Small was hysterical. Kosner was reluctant to corroborate the story and offered very little information. The officers received word by radio from other responding officers that the suspect (now known to be defendant Daryl John Christian) was in the building. The officers advised him that they were investigating a complaint involving a gun and asked him for identification. After confirming with Kosner that her boyfriend's name was Rick James. Christian then told the officers that his identification was from Florida. Christian was evasive and stressed that he did not have a gun </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4FB9CA30112526D588256D01007E723B/$file/0130398.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether an officer had a reasonable suspicion that the driver of a car was impaired. (4) the report was made contemporaneously with the source's observations of the erratic driving. (6) the officer noticed that the driver was sitting very close to the steering wheel. A behavior the officer knew was typical of impaired drivers. The existence of a reasonable suspicion that the operator of the car was impaired and properly held that the investigatory stop of the vehicle was constitutional. Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) employees Jay Harvey and Terry Omland were traveling eastbound on Interstate 94 outside Miles City. Harvey was accelerating their state maintenance truck to highway speed when he noticed a car approach in his rearview mirror. The car caught Harvey's attention because its left turn signal light was blinking. FERNANDEZ CASTILLO Concerned that the driver of the vehicle was impaired. This was the second time Harvey had decided to report such erratic driving. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/041890P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to a term of 30 months' imprisonment. Maltais was sitting in the driver's seat of his truck. Which was parked facing south by the side of a gravel road. The truck was towing a camper trailer. Maltais approached Danley's vehicle and asked whether there was as problem. There is a dispute about precisely what was said. 295 F. That the encounter ended when Danley told Maltais to return to his trailer and stay there.2 Although the district court's opinion is not entirely clear about which testimony it credited concerning the initial interaction between Danley and Maltais. It is evident that the court believed at least a good portion of Danley's version. That Maltais was found approximately six miles from a paved road. 295 F. Danley testified that Maltais claimed to have backed into his location from a paved road. Olson contacted Danley by radio and informed him that Maltais's vehicle was suspected of involvement in contraband smuggling. Guyer suspected that Maltais was a member of an international drug smuggling group called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/033337P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Duane Frederick Fisher was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Fisher was stopped by police after a citizen reported to officers that a man matching Fisher's description had threatened him with a gun. Officers Clifford and Kingdon of the Minneapolis Police Department were driving through what they described as a violent. Was wearing a light brown plaid flannel shirt. Fisher and Lorenzo were cooperative and non threatening. The officers questioned Fisher and Lorenzo to determine whether Lorenzo was a truant. Where they were flagged down by a Hispanic male unknown to them. We will refer to this man as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041806np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Shuaib Ali seeks review of a determination by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that he was properly stopped and searched pursuant to Terry v. Consequently that the evidence recovered from this search was properly admitted into evidence. Officer Francis Quinn and his partner were approached by an agitated Bryant Bustion. Bustion reported that he had been driving when he received a cellular telephone call from his daughter explaining that Appellant was holding her hostage at gunpoint. The address where his daughter told him she was being held. It was in the vicinity of this address that Mr. There is no indication in the record as to how much time had elapsed between Mr. Two men (and possibly one woman) were standing at the corner of Carlisle Street and Duncanon Street. There was no visible indication that either possessed a weapon. Neither was doing anything suspicious or unlawful. As Officer Quinn was searching. It was only after the arrest was made that Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511273.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Authorities received a 911 call from a person identifying himself as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994465.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Kenneth Burton challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a handgun that was discovered when a police officer reached inside Burton's coat during a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4031.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garcia was visiting. The deputy also informed Detective Wyant that one of the individuals involved in the overdose incident was named Dusty Kilgrow. Detective Wyant was familiar with the apartment complex. Kilgrow was an active member of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1377.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sue Mella initiated this suit after she was not selected to fill the position of Manager of Technology for Mapleton Public Schools. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. She does not have a master's or other advanced degree. Mella voiced her opinion that Fortres should not be disabled and explained that she was concerned with the possible consequences of removing the screening software. Mella emphasized that the decision to remove Fortres was made by Ms. Mella noted that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-1146.htm">01-1146 -- U.S. V. TRETO-HARO -- 04/24/2002<BR></A><BR> The court reasoned that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032282p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the habeas petition of Lisa Michelle Lambert. Lambert is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for first degree murder. Lambert was released into the custody of her attorneys on April 16. Her freedom was short lived. Where a PCRA Court (again Judge Stengel) held a six week hearing and determined in a comprehensive opinion that relief under the PCRA was not warranted. Judge Dalzell held that the state courts' findings were null and void because they lacked jurisdiction to hear Lambert's PCRA petition. The case was assigned to Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That the PCRA Court's findings were not null and void and were entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0326p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We previously held that Officer Christine Keith was entitled to qualified immunity from Cheryl Lyons' false arrest claim. Officer Matthew Foubert was entitled to qualified immunity from Lyons' claim that he used excessive force in handcuffing her. Officer Foubert was not entitled to qualified immunity from Lyons' claim that he used excessive force in tackling her in response to a distressed call for backup support from Officer Keith. Aiesha was also present at the Dodd residence. That a police officer was with her. Aiesha would have to come </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9910.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Then Warden of Central Prison where Carter is incarcerated. We will refer to Respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI2NzktY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2679-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) erred in failing to exclude evidence obtained by police officers who had (1) pulled over the sport utility vehicle ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI2NzktY3IgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2679-cr%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) erred in failing to exclude evidence obtained by police officers who had (1) pulled over the sport utility vehicle ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043489p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate the order of the District Court and remand for further findings consistent with this opinion. 3 I. No charges were filed against him. Three additional plots of marijuana plants growing in a field behind the house were also discovered and destroyed during the raid. Officer Howell received the first of two anonymous calls relating to the property previously surveilled and indicating that its residents were growing marijuana on the premises. The unidentified female caller advised Officer Howell that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ5MjMtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4923-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That ruling was a consequence of the District Court's conclusion that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop Muhammad and that subsequent events justified the seizure of the rifle. BACKGROUND The background narrative that follows is based upon the factual findings of Magistrate Judge H. To whom the suppression issue was referred for a Report and Recommendation. The findings were made following a hearing and are included in the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge and adopted by the District Court. Was riding a bicycle west on Stanislaus Street toward Fillmore Avenue in the City of Buffalo. Who never was identified. The gun was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-10859.opn.html">CLARK V. PUTNAM COUNTY (6/10/2002, NO. 01-10859)<BR></A><BR> Appellants claim that these two districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0292p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the stop was both unjustified in its inception and excessive in its means. Because the detention was justified by reasonable suspicion and was conducted in a reasonable manner. Gun is in the suspect's pocket. Officers Carl Stocks ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/12/041952P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court is affirmed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2037.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Kelley and Nee were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Although the district court found that the initial stop was permissible under <U>Terry</U> v. <U>Ohio</U>. The court rejected the police officers' account of the subsequent search of the car and their claim that the weapons were discovered inadvertently. The court found that the officers had conducted an intentional search for evidence of a crime despite their acknowledgment that they did not have probable cause for such a search. The government argues that there was no constitutional violation. Were on duty in an unmarked car in the Dorchester section of Boston. The officers observed a green Ford Mustang and noted that: 1) there was a hole where the trunk lock should have been. 2) the rear license plate was hanging from a single screw. 3) there was no front license plate. Advised him that the car he was driving had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1104.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/021065u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Appellant Barry Faulks was charged in the U.S. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and will affirm. The search was not supported by reasonable suspicion. Philadelphia police officers responded to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0829p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court correctly determined there was no existing lease with which the mortgagee could have tortiously interfered. No lease existed between WALP and Schulman because the draft leases on which all of the negotiations between Schulman and WALP were based explicitly required execution by the landlord. Schulman's alternate claim for interference with a prospective contractual relation between himself and WALP fails as a matter of law because Morgan and Widener were acting in good faith to protect their legal and financial interests as mortgagee of the premises Schulman sought to lease from WALP. We will affirm the district court's order in all respects. Jeffrey Kelter ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-4160.htm">98-4160 -- TILLMAN V. COOK -- 06/15/2000<BR></A><BR> Claiming his right to Due Process was violated. (3) the jury convicted him on the basis of elements for which there was insufficient evidence. (4) his indictment was insufficient. (5) his sentence of death was arbitrary. Because the distinction between first degree and second degree murder was entirely unclear to a jury. (6) his sentence of death was arbitrary and unconstitutional. Because three of five Justices of the Utah Supreme Court have. Tillman was convicted by a jury of first degree murder. Which was denied. <u>See</u> <u>Tillman v. Tillman's right to appeal is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Because his appeal was filed after its effective date. While the Court's clarification in <u>Slack</u> may have some effect on non constitutional claims. The standard remains the same for constitutional claims. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> <p> Because the showing for a CPC is the same as that required for a COA. 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043044np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Will affirm. The man was described as a heavyset. The area surrounding Arch and Edgewood Streets is described as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034280.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The purpose of the first search was to attempt to locate two women. One of whom was reportedly missing and being held against her will by DeQuasie in the residence. While law enforcement officers were executing the first search warrant. DeQuasie moved to suppress the firearm and ammunition on the ground that those items were seized from his residence in violation of the Fourth Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0300p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Firearms found in their possession and statements they made as they were taken into custody. The defendants were found outside the house. It emerged that the defendants were aliens illegally in this country. The defendants were taken into custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/03-5017.htm">03-5017 -- U.S. V. MANJARREZ -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Defendant argues: (1) the initial stop of his vehicle was unjustified. (2) his consent to questioning was involuntary and not supported by reasonable suspicion. (3) the pat down of his person was unlawful and vitiated any prior consent to search his car. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-10859.opn.html">CLARK V. PUTNAM COUNTY (6/10/2002, NO. 01-10859)<BR></A><BR> Appellants claim that these two districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061086np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Only claims that while he was using NJIT's library. He was falsely accused of stealing computer equipment and subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure. Only also claims that the actions of Defendants Cyr and the NJIT police were part of a conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights on the basis of his race (African American). NJIT police officers Cyr and Green were dispatched to the library and when they arrived. While Cyr was talking with Only. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary judgment is appropriate when the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98E0CAB5297A6F5A88256EE6007A5E64/$file/0235992.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As there was no collapse and thus no coverage. Attached to the steel frames are wooden exterior wall framing studs covered by exterior grade gypsum sheathing. The buildings' exterior siding is a polystyrene foam wall system called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054056np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to a prison term of 192 months followed by five years of supervised release. He appeals to us on two issues: (1) whether the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearm found in the vehicle in which he was a passenger as well as statements made by him to law enforcement officers following his arrest. Police Officers Donald Liebsch and Rahim Montgomery were located near the intersection of Germantown Avenue and Clearfield Street in Philadelphia. Prado complied and was immediately placed on the ground and put in handcuffs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B05F3200F4BD992288256ECF0057CC71/$file/0235936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The opinion appearing at 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) is AMENDED as follows: On page 1191. The challenged Ordinances are explicitly intended to combat the secondary effects of adult stores' speech. The district court ruled that the purpose of the Ordinances is to regulate the harmful secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses. Preamble/Findings (4)(k) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052486np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse the District Court and remand the case so that the District Court may consider. I. Background The following is what happened: On November 3. Fields was on probation for trafficking cocaine. That it 2 was possibly as long as five minutes before anyone came to open the door. Officer New testified that this delay led her and her colleagues to believe that there was something out of the ordinary going on inside of the house. When the door was finally opened. Fields was secured by one of the other probation officers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BDCBE4504396AEE788256C090059FC5D/$file/0015840.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We address here whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity. The case comes to us on an interlocutory appeal after the district court determined that the officer was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Also present at the meeting with Aberasturi were Hanson and the other party claiming ownership of the vehicle. Aberasturi told Stevens that he did not have good title to the car. That whoever had the title was entitled to possession of the car. Aberasturi realized that Stevens might have had the vehicle's keys in his possession. Aberasturi This factual background is based primarily on Stevens' filings. It is undisputed that Hanson did not explain why he was interested in speaking with Stevens. Stevens told Hanson </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C85D8443BFD16515882572030056B28D/$file/0510653.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paopao also claims that the District Court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charges because they were unconstitutional as applied to him. The robbers posed as police officers and were armed. PAOPAO 17355 Lum </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2111.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that it was not clearly (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> erroneous for the district court to find that Burns did not provide adequate and specific information to the dispatcher about why he suspected the van was engaged in illegal activity. We conclude that Healy did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the van. Gary Burns was traveling west on Interstate 40 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032280np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Office of United States Attorney This case was submitted to the panel of Judges Nygaard. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 * Federal Building 228 Walnut Street. Michael Parker appeals his sentence.1 We will affirm each defendants' convictions. We will vacate and remand the sentences. We recount the facts and the procedural background only as they are relevant to our decision. Throughout this opinion we will refer to the appellants by either their full name or simply by their first names. Tye Dickerson was later identified as a driver for an illegal cab service. Williams' experience led him to believe that Travis may have been hiding a pistol in his waistband. Santana knew the bulge was not a firearm. Daryl and Travis 4 proceeded to trial and were convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and underlying substantive offenses. 2) the cell phone caller's questions were inadmissible under the hearsay rule. 3 and 3) there was insufficient evidence to support conviction on the drug conspiracy charge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031633p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After Kimberly Wright was sexually assaulted by two men. Wright was charged with burglary. The charges against Wright were eventually dismissed. Because the facts and circumstances within the arresting officers' knowledge 2 were sufficient to warrant a prudent person believing that Wright had committed the crime of criminal trespass. We conclude that there was no constitutional violation. We hold that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and we will reverse denial of the officers' motion for summary judgment. Wright was driving alone on Chelten Avenue in Philadelphia when her car broke down. Jackson and Thompson took Wright from the beauty parlor to a home on Cedar Park Avenue where she was held in an intoxicated state for several 1 2 3 4 Because we are reviewing a claim of qualified immunity. She was partially undressed. Wright was able to get a ride from a taxi to a friend's home. Wright's sister took her to the hospital where she was treated for her physical injuries. Wright was interviewed by Officer Manning to whom she described the circumstances of the attack and explained that she had broken a window to get back inside the residence to retrieve her clothes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTQwMzRfc28ucGRm/05-4034_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8B496DAB0B99F7288256E5A00707B0F/$file/0030035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Portland Boulevard residence was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAAA6273214AA58388256EA000809B6A/$file/0235936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether the City of Spokane's ordinances regulating the location of adult oriented retail businesses ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3036a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115089.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the record does not show that Dahl's constitutional rights were violated. Jim Holley received a tip from confidential informant Rustin McCardle that Dahl's son was in possession of illicit drugs. Dahl's son gave a taped statement admitting that the drugs were his. He was released. We are required to resolve all issues of material fact in favor of the non moving party. Which in this case is Dahl. McCardle told Dahl that he constantly was searched by the police and felt trapped. Approximately one week after the police obtained an arrest warrant for her son.3 Dahl told McCardle about CLARA and about her suspicion that the police department was corrupt. 1998. 3 3 that the information she had gathered about the police was correct. At which McCardle was to corroborate CLARA's allegations against the police department. He informed McCardle that Dahl was spreading rumors that McCardle had planted drugs on her son. Who said that McCardle was headed for trouble and also urged him to tell the police what was going on. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113864.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claimed that his rights under the First Amendment's Speech Clause were violated when Allred and Harland punished him for silently raising his fist during the daily flag salute instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his class. He further claims that his Establishment Clause rights were violated by Allred's daily </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956356.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. while Plaintiff was driving an automobile they had under surveillance. Plaintiff was later convicted on federal charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and of possession of a firearm during a drug transaction. Black male named Riley was dealing cocaine out of a beige. Four door Hyundai at the corner of French and Decatur Streets and that he was armed with a .357 Magnum. present. The informant was identified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8D2161BA6DCC0E0882572FE0076991D/$file/0630386.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Washington was seated in his lawfully parked car. Was ordered out of and directed away from his car. Was searched. Was convicted of. During which the firearm was discovered. That Washington's consent was not voluntary. The search of Washington's car and the firearm discovered therein were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2EFDB85D6B4C3EA88256BFA0058AD64/$file/0110374.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a sailboat was lawfully boarded in Lahaina Harbor by officers from three different agencies and whether its owner consented to a search of his vessel. David Todhunter was convicted of (1) possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). The caller stated that (1) he was UNITED STATES v. (2) individuals on board the sailboat GANDALF moored in Lahaina Harbor were partying and taking drugs. Confirmed the presence in the harbor of a sailboat by that name and decided to board her to ensure that the GANDALF was complying with all federal rules and regulations. Because the Coast Guard was understaffed. Which was moored approximately 200 yards off the wharf. Believing the occupants of the vessel were then aboard and might take flight. He was accompanied by Petty Officer James Vareha and a coxswain from the Coast Guard and Hawaii Marine Patrol Deputy Nelson Alana. The district court noted that there was considerable dispute in the testimony regarding the exchange between Officer Wong and Todhunter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1779.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for the United States. Richard Alston was found guilty by a jury of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Most are readily answered. The background facts are not in dispute. Two Boston police officers received a tip from a confidential informant that a man near 5 Fayston Street in Dorchester was carrying a gun. The informant advised that the man was black. Was dressed in jeans. Realizing that there was a gun in the pocket. The officer removed it and arrested Alston. 2 2 The gun seized from Alston was later identified as a Colt Model 1908 .25 caliber. The weapon was rusted and pitted. Its slide was stuck. The gun's grip was wrapped in electrical tape. It is the government's later alteration of this weapon that gives rise to the main issue in this case. Alston was first charged under Massachusetts law with possessing a firearm without a license and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number. The state charges were dismissed because the Boston Police Department's ballistics unit had determined that the gun was inoperable and therefore did not meet the Massachusetts definition of a firearm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1562.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Was on brief for intervenor. The Regulatory Framework Operators of nuclear power plants must have a license issued by the NRC. Unless the modification is inconsistent with the license or involves an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1819.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. Were in possession of firearms inside Pete & Mary's Bar. Because Officer Leedberg was involved in another case on August 14. The confidential informant told Officer Leedberg that Lewis and Starks were again in 3 possession of firearms in Pete & Mary's Bar. He stated that he had seen the firearms and the informant then described to Officer Leedberg how Lewis and Starks were dressed. The officers were in an unmarked police cruiser and were dressed in street clothes. 4 Officers Leedberg and Keating were rapidly approaching the D'Angelo's parking lot in their unmarked police car. Who was still conducting surveillance from the used car lot adjacent to the D'Angelo's parking lot. We note that the district court is entrusted with deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing and we will not overrule the refusal to convene an evidentiary hearing unless the district court is shown to have abused its discretion. Lewis and Starks have made no such showing. Evidentiary hearings on motions to suppress are required only when a defendant makes a sufficient showing that a warrantless search has occurred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-4071.htm">97-4071 -- CARLSEN V. DURON -- 01/30/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff David Craig Carlsen appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-6296.htm">97-6296 -- U.S. V. BARNES -- 03/09/1998<BR></A><BR> This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Darris Dewayne Barnes appeals from the sentence which the district court imposed when it revoked his supervised release. Barnes contends that 1) the evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding that he violated his supervised release. He was sentenced to 46 months' imprisonment and a three year term of supervised release. Barnes left the halfway house on a weekend pass which was good from Saturday. Phone numbers for the places he expected to be for each hour he was away from the halfway house. The pass was conditioned upon his agreement to not drink any alcoholic beverages. Where Barnes was staying. Covington told the police that Barnes' name was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-6332.htm">97-6332 -- U.S. V. WILLIAMS -- 04/10/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Stevie Jerome Williams appeals his convictions following a jury trial for bank robbery. He contends that the district court erred in finding 1) there was probable cause to arrest him. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1170.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Penza LLP</SPAN> was on brief for appellees.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2762.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Barnard was charged in a single count indictment with being a felon in possession of firearms. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 and now reverse.<STRONG></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><CENTER>FACTUAL BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> On December 1. Probation Officer Paul Kelly conveyed information from a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/001328.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S 922(g)(1).2 The sole issue on appeal is whether police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop a public bus on which Robertson was traveling and search for and seize a handgun and ammunition. We will affirm. He was sentenced to sixty six months' imprisonment. Responded to a radio call that police officers were pursuing two male robbery suspects on the run. At least one of the suspects was allegedly armed. The patrol car was parked a quarter of the way up Gratz Street. The two men Captain Sullivan saw were apparently running toward the robbery scene. Fleeing robbers may have changed direction for a certain purpose. 124 (2000) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-2383.htm">97-2383 -- U.S. V. COTA-SOLIS -- 08/10/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> The defendant was convicted of possessing more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute. Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Villa was conducting surveillance near Cloverdale. The southernmost 25 miles of Highway 338 is unpaved. There are very few homesteads along that stretch of road. Cloverdale is located approximately four miles from the Mexican border. Who were located north of him on Highway 338. Informing him that a vehicle was traveling southbound towards Cloverdale. Agent Sella was somewhat familiar with the local vehicles on that portion of Highway 338. The defendant admitted that he was a Mexican national. The defendant's truck was searched. The defense attorney made objections to the government attorney's questions on the basis that they were leading and lacked foundation. (2) that there is no evidence that he waived his Miranda rights. We accept the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's findings. <u>See</u> <u>United States v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031782np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Tyrone Pringle was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Pringle was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 46 months. Although Pringle was not the target of the search or associated with the premises. The issue on appeal is whether the police had reasonable suspicion for the pat down search as required by Terry v. Sergeant Adam Sendek of the Chester Police Department narcotics unit was driving around the city of Chester. With a confidential informant who was pointing out locations in the city where drug dealing and other criminal activity was taking place. Pringle was not a target of this investigation. They approached the residence from the back alley because the entrance to the second floor apartment was in the rear. He saw to his left that there was a car parked on the property with a person in the driver's seat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-5070.htm">98-5070 -- U.S. V. GONZALEZ -- 06/11/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Alberto Gonzalez entered a conditional plea of guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Were to arrive in Tulsa on a Delta Airlines flight from California. Several officers were stationed at the airport when the flight arrived to observe the passengers as they deplaned and left the airport. Who was carrying a bag. Was one of two Hispanic males who got off the airplane. Defendant was taken to a nearby police station where officers found two additional packages of narcotics taped to defendant and confirmed that the package that fell to the ground did contain narcotics. <p> <center>II.</center> <p> <center><strong>Motion to Suppress</strong></center> <p> Defendant moved to suppress the narcotics seized from his person. Asserting the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him as he got out of the cab. <p> When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress. We accept the court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. <u>Id.</u> The credibility of witnesses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1554p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by the United States from a pre trial order suppressing evidence in a criminal prosecution. The Government seeks to reverse the district court's suppression of a firearm that was found in the possession of passenger defendant Gary Moorefield after the car in which he was riding was stopped for a routine traffic violation. He contends that the pat down that produced the weapon was illegal. The officers were justified in conducting a pat down for weapons. I. Moorefield was charged in one count of a five count indictment with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)(Supp. 1997). He withdrew his plea of guilty and filed a motion to suppress the pistol that was found on his person when he was frisked following a routine traffic stop. The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which Police Officer Anthony Wiles was the sole witness for the government. Officer Wiles' account of the facts is essentially undisputed. Officer Wiles and his partner were on routine patrol in the East Liberty section of Pittsburgh. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-1412.htm">01-1412 -- U.S. V. JENKINS -- 11/22/2002<BR></A><BR> District Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/01-3036b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. He con tends that the retention of his identification during a Terry stop extended his nonconsensual detention longer than was necessary to effect the purpose of the Terry stop. There fore was unlawful. Because the district court did not address Hutchinson's argument that the scope and duration of the Terry stop was excessive in light of police retention of his identification. Hence there are no findings of fact essential to decide this legal issue. The police were investigating a stabbing incident that arose from the robbery and occurred at around 11:30 11:45 p.m. on July 27. Which is approximately two to three blocks from Monroe Street. An eyewitness to the stabbing told Detective Hilliard that the person who had done the stabbing was a black male. A lookout was broadcast. The lookout stated that the subject was last seen walking eastbound in the 1200 block of Kenyon Street. Was carrying a shoulder bag. He was 28 or 29 years of age. His hair was in a bush hairstyle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/01-3036a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. He con tends that the retention of his identification during a Terry stop extended his nonconsensual detention longer than was necessary to effect the purpose of the Terry stop. There fore was unlawful. Because the district court did not address Hutchinson's argument that the scope and duration of the Terry stop was excessive in light of police retention of his identification. Hence there are no findings of fact essential to decide this legal issue. The police were investigating a stabbing incident that arose from the robbery and occurred at around 11:30 11:45 p.m. on July 27. Which is approximately two to three blocks from Monroe Street. An eyewitness to the stabbing told Detective Hilliard that the person who had done the stabbing was a black male. A lookout was broadcast. The lookout stated that the subject was last seen walking eastbound in the 1200 block of Kenyon Street. Was carrying a shoulder bag. He was 28 or 29 years of age. His hair was in a bush hairstyle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-3120a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Circuit Judge: The question before the court is whether the district court properly admitted evidence police obtained from a search of the appellant. The district court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to search the appellant because they had received an anonymous tip that he was carrying a gun the possession of which is unlawful in the District of Columbia and because the tip was corrobo rated to the extent of certain details. Which were in them selves innocent. Only innocent details of which have been corroborated. Is not reasonable and the evidence it produces is not admissible. We nonetheless affirm the judgment in this case because uncontradicted evidence in the record shows that the tip at issue bore indicia of reliability not present in J.L. and because the defendant's conduct itself gave the police reasonable cause to suspect that he was engaged in unlawful activity. I. Background The facts surrounding the search of Terrell Thompson were established at an evidentiary hearing and are not in dispute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/95-2100.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. LEOS-QUIJADA<BR></A><BR> The letter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/96-7191a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ginsberg were on the briefs. Halloran were on the brief. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to decide LaRouche's Voting Rights Act claims and therefore remand them for the convening of a three judge district court. Have established a bona fide record of public service. Welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States at heart and will participate in the Convention in good faith. Is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service. Public writings and/or public statements affir matively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests. Will participate in the Convention in good faith. Before the first primary was held. Fowler determined that: Lyndon Larouche [sic] is not a bona fide Democrat and does not possess a record affirmatively demonstrating that he is faithful to. This determination is based on Mr. Including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti Semitic. Larouche [sic] is not to be considered a qualified candidate for nomination of the Democratic Party for President.... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/02-11408.opn.html">HOLMES V. KUCYNDA (2/13/2003, NO. 02-11408)<BR></A><BR> We affirm that portion of the summary judgment that grants qualified immunity to the officers on Holmes' claim that they entered the apartment she was in without consent. Officer Rolfe was dispatched to the Post Woods Apartments in Atlanta. Holmes asserted in her deposition that the argument was not loud enough for anyone outside the apartment to hear. Both Holmes and Wisong were undressed and in bed. Wisong put on a pair of shorts and a shirt and went to answer the door while Holmes went across the hall to the bathroom to secure a robe. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1077.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David Leroy Hartman was found guilty in a jury trial of five criminal counts: possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 992(g)(1) and 924(e)(2). Three of the issues were initially raised in pre trial motions: a request to suppress the fruits of an allegedly illegal stop and search. The informant was known to Detective Grassman. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan97/95-6356.opa.html">RILEY V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Riley v. Jr. while Plaintiff was driving an automobile they had under surveillance. Plaintiff was later convicted on federal charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and of possession of a firearm during a drug transaction.<p> According to Defendants. Black male named Riley was dealing cocaine out of a beige. Four door Hyundai at the corner of French and Decatur Streets and that he was armed with a .357 Magnum. Wooten had received a tip that Plaintiff was in a blue and white Buick Electra 225 (the car Jones and Wooten found him driving) and was transporting cocaine. Plaintiff says Wooten falsified the tip.<p> Though the officers were driving an unmarked car. Wooten searched the car and claims to have found a bag of cocaine between the door and the driver's seat. Plaintiff was charged. </i> that he routinely falsified records and may well have lied about the existence of a confidential informant. It is highly unlikely that the defendant would have been convicted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984508.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. No. 98 4508 OPINION PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Clapp was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. I. Clapp was arrested on July 3. After he was found in possession of a 9 mm pistol with an obliterated serial number outside an apartment complex in an area known to be an open air drug market. Alleging that he was stopped by police in violation of the Fourth Amendment and did not consent to have the police officer search his pockets. Norfolk Police Officer Paul Donnelly testified at the suppression hearing that he was in a three to four man bicycle patrol which entered the complex during the day on July 3. Because the apartment owners were concerned about trespassers involved in drug dealing. He said it was police policy to verify assurances that someone was visiting a resident as such claims were often untrue. Donnelly said he noticed a large bulge in Clapp's pants pocket and asked what it was. Which was still there. Asked what it was. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974675.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 4675 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. At the suppression hearing the following facts were revealed. Vance was walking behind the other two officers and placed his hands inside his coat pocket. The district court found that based upon the totality of the circumstances the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion that Vance was armed relying on United States v. The reasonableness of a search and seizure is a legal conclusion which we review de novo with the factual findings underlying the legal conclusions reviewed for clear error. A brief investigative stop is permissible whenever an officer has reasonable suspicion grounded 1 The officers were employed by Bradley Hills Limited Partnership. Were commissioned by the state of Maryland. Loitering is prohibited in entranceways of the property. 111). 3 The gun was in fact a starter's pistol. 2 in articulable and specific facts that a crime has been or is about to be committed. Defense counsel contended that the officers could have permissibly stopped Vance to question him but that the patdown search was impermissible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-15089.opn.html">DAHL V. HOLLEY (11/19/2002, NO. 01-15089)<BR></A><BR> Because the record does not show that Dahl's constitutional rights were violated. Jim Holley received a tip from confidential informant Rustin McCardle that Dahl's son was in possession of illicit drugs. Dahl's son gave a taped statement admitting that the drugs were his. He was released. McCardle told Dahl that he constantly was searched by the police and felt trapped. Approximately one week after the police obtained an arrest warrant for her son.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964617.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 3 4 the phrase is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-6213.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="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/02-11408.opn.html">HOLMES V. KUCYNDA (2/13/2003, NO. 02-11408)<BR></A><BR> We affirm that portion of the summary judgment that grants qualified immunity to the officers on Holmes' claim that they entered the apartment she was in without consent. Officer Rolfe was dispatched to the Post Woods Apartments in Atlanta. Holmes asserted in her deposition that the argument was not loud enough for anyone outside the apartment to hear. Both Holmes and Wisong were undressed and in bed. Wisong put on a pair of shorts and a shirt and went to answer the door while Holmes went across the hall to the bathroom to secure a robe. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan97/95-6356.opa.html">RILEY V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Riley v. Jr. while Plaintiff was driving an automobile they had under surveillance. Plaintiff was later convicted on federal charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and of possession of a firearm during a drug transaction.<p> According to Defendants. Black male named Riley was dealing cocaine out of a beige. Four door Hyundai at the corner of French and Decatur Streets and that he was armed with a .357 Magnum. Wooten had received a tip that Plaintiff was in a blue and white Buick Electra 225 (the car Jones and Wooten found him driving) and was transporting cocaine. Plaintiff says Wooten falsified the tip.<p> Though the officers were driving an unmarked car. Wooten searched the car and claims to have found a bag of cocaine between the door and the driver's seat. Plaintiff was charged. </i> that he routinely falsified records and may well have lied about the existence of a confidential informant. It is highly unlikely that the defendant would have been convicted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014946.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> HAINES Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Haines was charged in the Eastern District of Virginia with the illegal possession of a firearm. The district court suppressed his inculpatory statements on the ground that they were obtained in violation of the Constitution. Is drawn from the evidence presented in this hearing and from the findings made in the Suppression Order. The Richmond Police Department was involved in the conduct of a surveillance operation in the 1300 block of North 27th Street. The surveillance was initiated because of recent drug and homicide activity in that area of Richmond. It was not directed at any particular individual. In the area where the surveillance was ongoing. He was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/971930P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude the police had reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking to conduct an investigative stop of the car in which Williams was a passenger. Who was now standing outside the car. Testified that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/961128P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A search that is invalid under United States v. Larsen then asked Menard if he was carrying a gun. Larsen. exited and stood toward the rear of the auto while Hawley conducted his that he was carrying a .410 caliber handgun and handed the weapon to Menard was arrested. A post arrest search revealed that he was carrying ten small plastic bags of methamphetamine. The district court concluded that it was reasonable for the officers to take action to protect their safety. Once the weapon was found on Walker. Was the least intrusive method to determine rapidly whether any further weapons were in the hands of anyone else involved in the stop. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/062985P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Employees of the store informed NLRPD the stolen guns were new with price tags still attached. Neither the information regarding the store's identity nor the guns bearing price tags was made public before 10:00 p.m. on July 29 at the earliest. The informant knew details of the Fort Thompson burglary that were not yet public knowledge. The informant reported the white Honda Accord was parked in front of or near Apartment 31. Which was parked in a lot near Apartment 31. A man and a woman exited either Apartment 30 or 31 (which were located next door to each other). Officer Miller was advised the vehicle was linked to the Fort Thompson burglary and might contain firearms. Officer Miller was instructed to treat the investigative stop as a felony stop and to handcuff the vehicle's occupants in accordance with NLRPD practice. Officers later confirmed the gun was one of the Fort Thompson guns stolen earlier that day. 2 Miranda v. We review for clear error the district court's factual findings and review de novo whether the Fourth Amendment was violated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/051220P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Christopher Michael Barker was convicted of possession of stolen firearms and being a felon in possession of firearms. Finding that the evidence was lawfully obtained. Springfield police officer Kurtis Schmidt was dispatched to a motel. Although Williams was not sure what he was saying. Williams did believe he was discussing a meeting. Brewer's gun was drawn and was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6207.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The matter is before this court on Webster's request for a certificate of appealability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-6213.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="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/023246P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) taskforce received information from two independent sources that a Hispanic male was distributing drugs and had firearms at his home in Kansas City. Who was in custody on drug charges. The Hispanic male was in the front yard most of the time. He had a goatee and was wearing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/011738P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government argues that the trooper's pat down was justified by reasonable suspicion that Roggeman was presently armed and dangerous and that the District Court thus erred in concluding that the pat down violated the Fourth Amendment. Gregory Roggeman was driving his pickup truck near his home in Mason City. He pulled Roggeman over to investigate a possible muffler violation.1 Roggeman was the only person in the truck. Trooper Moore was alone as well. Roggeman admitted that the truck's muffler had a hole in it and told the trooper that he was heading home from a shop where he had been working on the truck. He then requested that Roggeman </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/003741P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nebraska police stopped Brian Spotts's truck as he drove by a residence that DEA agents were searching for a methamphetamine lab. A bag of methamphetamine and a pistol were plainly visible inside the stopped truck. Retained the right to appeal the district court's1 order ruling that the evidence obtained from the stop of his vehicle was admissible at trial. Spotts argues that the district court should have suppressed the evidence because the stop was not supported by the reasonable suspicion required by Terry v. Spotts was not mentioned in the search warrant. His vehicle was seen at the property on the night before the search. Both the search and the surveillance that preceded it are therefore circumstances relevant to whether the police reasonably could have suspected Spotts of wrongdoing when they stopped him. Where the court below made no findings on a given factual matter we take note of record evidence that is uncontradicted. Seeming to arise at times when the lights were on in a garage on the Hughes property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/003457P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even if his conviction were lawful. His sentence is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. Because we find that the District Court properly denied Wheat's motion to suppress and that the Apprendi error was harmless. Was being driven erratically in the northbound lane of Highway 169. The caller complained that the Nissan was passing on the wrong side of the road. Who was sitting in the front passenger seat. There were no other passengers. A check disclosed that Wheat's license was suspended but that notice of the suspension had The Honorable Mark W. Because Officer Samuelson was unfamiliar with the procedure for service. Because Officer Samuelson had noticed that the driver's hands were fidgeting. As Officer Samuelson was walking around toward the passenger side. Because it was raining during the duration of the stop. The dryness of the bag was remarkable. Wheat was indicted by a grand jury on one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/42069E20DC30AFAB8825722D007DEBE7/$file/0510653.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006) is amended as follows: On slip op. page 17359. PAOPAO 18699 of the weapon and the ammunition magazine was not based on a reasonable belief that the two items constituted evidence of a crime. (The situation would have been different had the jewels and the knife been visible. The gun and the magazine were hidden in the bag.). The seizure of Paopao's tan bag was the direct result of a plain view search in a commercial establishment where Paopao had no Fourth Amendment privacy interest and. Are DENIED. Future petitions for rehearing will not be entertained. Paopao also claims that the District Court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charges because they were unconstitutional as applied to him. The robbers posed as police officers and were armed. Honolulu Police Officer Joseph Lum ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2791.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Carter was required to complete and sign a health history questionnaire. Carter then answered in the affirmative the following three questions: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3767.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that even though the affidavit was insufficient to establish the probable cause requirement for the issuance of a search warrant. The evidence seized was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Drugs.2 The case was referred to the federal authorities for prosecution. The defendant argued that the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because the agents could not have reasonably believed that the warrant was supported by probable cause. The record does not make clear exactly when Koerth was taken into custody. He found that the agents reasonably believed that the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause in the officers' minds. The magistrate's report was filed with the trial judge. The court ruled that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2206.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Illinois had been receiving methamphetamine in the U.S. mail.1 The CI stated that the methamphetamine was being sent by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B572CCD10A6B676882572E2007E0F8B/$file/0610398.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Dale Washington Orman was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. He argues further that neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause existed and that the search was not justified for officer safety purposes. An 1 The facts are taken from the district court's order granting in part and denying in part Orman's suppression motion. Who was working at the mall as an off duty police officer. Ferragamo told Orman that he had information that Orman may be carrying a gun and asked Orman if that were true. He noticed a small bulge under Orman's shirt and asked Orman where the gun was located. Who was wearing business clothes. Who was also working as an off duty police officer at the mall. He claimed that he was patted down for the gun. 2 6014 UNITED STATES v. Officer Larson approached Ferragamo and Orman while they were talking by the storefront after Ferragamo had retrieved the handgun. Orman was not handcuffed and was not asked about the gun during the walk. A convicted felon is both a prohibited possessor and ineligible to obtain a concealed weapons permit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/977A3690A89BE17D8825722D007DA4DA/$file/0415788.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Challenge the United States Department of Agriculture's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0032n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael White pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after the district court denied his motion to suppress a gun recovered from a vehicle in which he was traveling. White was released on parole on June 5. Beebe learned from his source that White was a parole violator possibly living in the Stark County or Akron. No significant efforts were made to locate White. The source told Allen that White frequented the Daleford residence and that White was either the driver of or a frequent passenger in the Chrysler. Went to 2907 Daleford after receiving a report that a vehicle matching the description that the source had provided was present at the residence. They also noted that the Chrysler parked in the driveway did not have tinted windows. White was not found in the house. They had no knowledge of who was in the vehicle because the Chrysler's windows were tinted. The officers were not aware of the vehicle's occupants. White was then placed under arrest. Who was later identified as White's girlfriend Hanady Malka. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0247p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL. There were originally twenty two plaintiffs and twelve separate incidents at issue. Holding that this conduct raised an issue of fact as to whether the stop was based on race. Also whether the pat down search conducted by Officer Childs was reasonable under the circumstances. Is a suburb adjacent to Detroit. The 2000 census figures indicate that Eastpointe is 92.1 percent white and 4.7 percent African American. Detroit was found to be 12.3 percent white and 81.6 percent African American. Made famous by the popular movie 8 Mile divides the two cities and is commonly known as a racial dividing line. The plaintiffs claim that they were subjected to racial discrimination when they crossed Eight Mile Road into Eastpointe. Against the backdrop of each individual Fourteenth Amendment claim is reference to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0195n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was drinking a vodka tonic but had not consumed any other alcoholic beverages. Yelled and threw a cigarette at a group of young people who were racing a motorcycle up and down the street in front of Feinthel's home. I will shoot you. While Feinthel was picking up the cigarette. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0075p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful. The clearly established law of probable cause in this circuit was Criss v. Chief Schubert was not required to anticipate the majority's opinion here. Chief Schubert was entitled to rely on the plain holding of Criss. Could have read Criss to authorize the arrest. Of individuals who were in possession of particular goods that had been explicitly identified as stolen. Gardenhire's establishment was a thrift shop owned by Mary Della Sala. The bathroom and climate control panel for both stores were located in Ms. The two women were in the process of moving their merchandise. Television and VCR were among the items stolen. Who was also acting detective for the city. That some of these items were visible. There is no evidence in the record as to how the officers phrased this directive. Although Katherine Gardenhire is the sole owner of Uniquely Yours. The Gardenhires are an interracial couple: Katherine is Caucasian. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-15089.opn.html">DAHL V. HOLLEY (11/19/2002, NO. 01-15089)<BR></A><BR> Because the record does not show that Dahl's constitutional rights were violated. Jim Holley received a tip from confidential informant Rustin McCardle that Dahl's son was in possession of illicit drugs. Dahl's son gave a taped statement admitting that the drugs were his. He was released. McCardle told Dahl that he constantly was searched by the police and felt trapped. Approximately one week after the police obtained an arrest warrant for her son.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004533.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Gill was arrested following an investigatory traffic stop that led to the discovery of over eleven grams of cocaine base. Our review of the record convinces us that the investigatory stop was properly based on reasonable suspicion provided by a tip from an informant known to the police officer and independent investigation carried out by that officer. Our review of the record convinces us that there was sufficient evidence to establish Gill's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of cocaine base with the intent to distribute. The possession of eleven grams of cocaine base is consistent with intent to distribute. 973 (4th Cir. 1996) (5.72 grams of crack is a quantity sufficient to support intent to distribute). There was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Gill possessed cocaine base with the intent to distribute. We find that Gill's motion was not timely. That there was sufficient communication between Gill and his attorney so that an adequate UNITED STATES v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001300.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. That Jenkins was not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. We vacate the Jenkins is a Deputy Sheriff of Wake County. North Carolina who was working in Dillard's department store as a private security guard. Karadi does not contend that Jenkins was not working in his capacity as a police officer at the time of the incident and that he. Is not entitled to qualified immunity. To the extent such an argument was available. Because all of the federal claims have been rejected. Because this is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment. Karadi was shopping at the Dillard's department store in the Cary Towne Center in Cary. These items were placed in a Dillard's bag. Which was placed in a separate Dillard's bag. Which were placed in a third Dillard's bag. Observed Karadi while she was browsing. Which were placed in a fourth Dillard's bag. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/391D9C193A5A61448825734500594DFC/$file/0515522.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Rodis is an attorney and an elected public official who sits on the Community College Board of the San Francisco City College. Because it was an old bill (a 1985 series). Because it appeared to have a texture different than bills with which the cashier was familiar. While the manager was examining the bill. After determining that the second bill was authentic. Which indicated it was authentic. The manager told Rodis he thought the bill might be fake and he was going to call the police so that they could settle the issue. Rodis was frustrated with the delay but remained in the store willingly until the officers arrived. The manager told Nguyen he had compared the bill to another and was uncertain about the bill's authenticity. They concluded it was probably counterfeit. Because they were not certain. No effort was made to investigate whether Rodis intended to use an ersatz bill or whether he believed the bill to be counterfeit. During which the agent confirmed that the bill was in fact genuine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E5F3A673466BE058825734D0052AF1C/$file/0399010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2608843B69ADF29188256E29007159D7/$file/0330085.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the evidence obtained was the suppressible. The 911 call was entitled to greater reliability than a tip concerning general criminality because the police must be able to take seriously. The victim jeopardized any anonymity he might have enjoyed by placing his 911 call and risking criminal sanction under Oregon law for any false report. His 911 call was entitled to greater reliability because it evidenced first hand information from a victim informant. Domingis was not a native English speaker and spoke English with difficulty. Domingis explained that he did not know the return number because he was calling from someone else's cellular telephone. When the operator asked if there was another number where she could reach him. The information from this second 911 call was not communicated to Officer Kulp prior to the Terry stop. The effort was unsuccessful. No germane or exact match was reported. Factual findings are reviewed for clear error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BBAE1678592C93588256A3A005B2564/$file/0030035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Portland Boulevard residence was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/19A63EBF0C6F38D5882571C4007CA4C6/$file/0430337.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Andrew Flatter was a postal service employee suspected of stealing mail. They conducted the search because they were concerned that their questioning might turn confrontational. Flatter was charged with mail theft. The district court found that the search was lawful and. Flatter was convicted and sentenced to probation. Because the officers had no reason to believe that Flatter was armed or dangerous. Postal inspectors soon focused their attention on Andrew Flatter after a cross comparison of work schedules revealed that he was among a handful of workers who had been present on nearly all of the dates on which mail was lost. Which housed sorted mail that was to be delivered to Coeur d'Alene. The mail in Bay 32 was in large. Flatter's job was to drive a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/991150P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/11/982224P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mark Tuley was detained by Franklin. Which was parked at a closed gas station at 3:00 a.m. across the diagonal lines of the parking lot. He also observed that his truck had an in transit sticker but no license plates and was parked over the station's gasoline storage tanks. A coil of garden hose was tied to the side of the truck near its gas tank. Which was blocked in the front by an awning. Rust noticed Tuley's eyes were bloodshot and he slurred his speech. Rust radioed his dispatcher to verify that Tuley had a valid driver's license and was informed Nebraska had a warrant for Tuley's arrest. Rust then requested a verification that the warrant was still outstanding. Which was received twenty minutes after Rust first pulled behind Tuley's truck. The district court found that the initial contact was consensual but turned into a seizure upon Rust's approach to the truck. Tuley does not appeal the denial of his motion to suppress statements he made after his arrest. 2 2 1 Tuley claims he was seized as soon as Rust blocked his truck and that Rust did not have reasonable suspicion for doing so. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/962973P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawson argues that the district court erred in using the wrong legal standard to determine whether he is entitled to qualified immunity. In that attack Dehart was stabbed. Who is the mother of Carroll Joe Eubanks and Dehart. The district court held that Lawson was entitled to qualified immunity for stopping the truck and initially detaining Dehart.2 The court determined. That there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Lawson learned while he detained Dehart that Dehart had not committed a crime but was only the victim of a crime. The court concluded that if Lawson continued to detain Dehart after learning that Dehart was only the victim of a crime. Then Lawson's continued detainment of Dehart was unreasonable and Lawson was not entitled to qualified immunity for that action. Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and Lawson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The contours of that right must be sufficiently clear and specific that a reasonable law enforcement officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right. </TD> </TR> </TABLE> <!-- End of real page content --> <!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer --> <P></P> <!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer --> <!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) --> <div id="footer"> <div class="footerNav"> <div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know --> <ul> <li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li> <li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li> <li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">© copyright</a></li> </ul> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ridiculous div --> </div><!-- close footerNav --> </div><!-- close footer --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) --> <!-- end of included footer --> </BODY> </HTML> <!-- end of HTML --> <!-- code from here on down --> <!-- input arguments are: a query (optional) --> <!-- to begin with... This init block sets up and runs the query. --> <!-- select correct options based on scope -->