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


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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

Your query appellate returned 35095 results.

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

1000 OPINION/ORDER
The jury was instructed to determine whether the murder with which Valerio was charged
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge This is an appeal by four codefendants. The threshold issue is our own appellate jurisdiction. We conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction over the Appellate Division's 2 determination of its own jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. At issue in this case is a provision regarding interlocutory appeals by the Government of certain pretrial orders in criminal cases. Duvalier Basquin was lured to a lonely road in the Bolongo Bay area of St. He was robbed and murdered. Following The three judge panel is composed of the two Judges of the District Court of the Virgin Islands. See 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(b). 3 1 We have recently described the structure of the court system in the Virgin Islands in some detail. There are two trial courts: The Territorial Court is comparable to a state court of general jurisdiction. The statements would have to be redacted or even rewritten to preserve the defendants' Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. If the United States Attorney or the Attorney General conducting the prosecution for such violation certifies to the Judge who granted The issue in cases raising a Bruton issue is that the prosecution would like to introduce confessions by nontestifying defendants in joint trials.
973 OPINION/ORDER
If the 26(B) procedure is part of the initial direct appeal of right. Assistance of counsel is constitutionally required at both stages. 372 U.S. 353 (1963) (holding that a state is required to provide counsel to an indigent defendant on appeal as of right). Indigent defendants have no Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel. 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (holding that there is no federal constitutional right to counsel for indigent prisoners seeking state postconviction relief). Petitioner Fernando Lopez argued that the state courts' denial of appointed counsel to help him prepare his 26(B) application violated his constitutional right to assistance of counsel because the 26(B) procedure is part of the initial direct appeal as of right. 355 F.3d 931 (6th Cir.) (holding that the Ohio Court of Appeals' decision that the petitioner was not entitled to a Sixth Amendment right to appointment of counsel for filing an application to reopen his direct appeal was not contrary to clearly established federal law). Because panels of this court have split over the correct characterization of the rule.
954 01-2301 -- U.S. V. HAHN -- 03/04/2004

Hahn was convicted of marijuana and firearms violations and sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. We hold that we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Part III.C of the Per Curiam opinion is an opinion concurring in the result.

934 OPINION/ORDER
At issue is whether we have jurisdiction to hear the government's appeal. Held the sentence was illegal because
904 OPINION/ORDER
Defendant was represented by a retained attorney. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Defendant was again represented by Attorney Lawrence E. The leave to appeal was denied. If the grounds for relief were not raised before. The reasons they were not raised. The motion must be presented to the judge to whom the case was assigned at the time of the defendant's conviction. Appeals are by application to the Court of Appeals. The trial court was known as the Detroit Recorder's Court. Legislation was passed to dissolve the Detroit Recorder's Court and consolidate its operation under the newly formed Third Circuit Court.
891 EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)

Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
891 EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)

Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
887 OPINION/ORDER
Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.1 We conclude that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to ask the supreme court to set aside the conviction on the ground that petitioner had been denied the equal protection right recognized by Batson v. The accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
876 OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
In this direct criminal appeal. We hold that the district court did not have jurisdiction under Fed. Ct. 2531 (2004) is enforceable and bars our consideration of any claims he may assert under United States v.
867 OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to review a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin Islands. We will not address the merits of this appeal. The property was purchased by Santiago Camacho. (2) even if Dodge was entitled to the homestead exemption. Which was less than the amount paid out by Camacho. To have an order confirming the sale. The appellate division therefore remanded the case to the territorial court to give Dodge
867 OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to review a decision of the Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin Islands. We will not address the merits of this appeal. The property was purchased by Santiago Camacho. (2) even if Dodge was entitled to the homestead exemption. Which was less than the amount paid out by Camacho. To have an order confirming the sale. The appellate division therefore remanded the case to the territorial court to give Dodge
863 OPINION/ORDER
Moved to withdraw on the grounds the appeal was frivolous. Pfau's defense was he helped plan the robbery. Moore testified Pfau's role during the robbery was
861 OPINION/ORDER
Reeves was convicted of two counts of felony murder and sentenced to death by the State of Nebraska. His convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court both on appeal and in postconviction actions. Was in a near stupor when he left to go visit Ms. Mesner and Reeves1 were distantly related. Mesner was stabbed seven times. Who was visiting with her young daughter. Walked in on the struggle and was also stabbed by Reeves. Lamm's wounds were almost immediately fatal. Mesner was able to make her way downstairs to summon help. Reeves was arrested and given Miranda warnings. Reeves stated that he was too drunk to remember much. Reeves is an American Indian who was adopted and raised by a Quaker family. 2 1 Reeves' blood alcohol level was .149 when it was tested approximately three hours after the assault. Reeves' blood alcohol level may have been as high as .230 at the time of the crimes. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the peyote buttons he ingested would have exaggerated or counteracted the effects of the alcohol.
856 OPINION/ORDER
Tewksbury was working alone as the night clerk at the King Kwik convenience store at 9870 Pippin Road in Hamilton County. Monte was married and was the father of three children. Robert Shephard was driving northbound on Pippin Road. Monte was bleeding from his side. Went back to the telephone which was still off the hook. Monte was transported to a hospital.
852 EXXON V. LUBRIZOL
848 OPINION/ORDER
Simmons claims that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. That he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the plea stage. That the state should have provided him appointed counsel to represent him in the appellate process under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Halbert v. Where he was residing at the time. Appears to have been overindulging with some friends at the time. Who was staying in Simmons's room at the hotel. The parties dispute what Simmons's intention was in setting the shirt on fire he characterizes it as a practical joke. Blystra sought to have criminal charges brought against Simmons. Simmons was arrested and charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. In an attempt to have Simmons
848 OPINION/ORDER
Robert Lee Caver was convicted for violating Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.89. Arguing that (1) the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim was procedurally defaulted. (2) assuming that the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim was not procedurally defaulted. Robert Lee Caver was convicted in the Detroit Recorder's Court of assault with intent to commit armed robbery and two counts of attempted assault with The Honorable Joseph M. Caver was prosecuted for entering and looting a local drug house with two other men while impersonating federal law enforcement agents. Caver is currently imprisoned only for assault with intent to commit armed robbery. Asserting that the trial court erred in instructing the jury and that there was insufficient evidence regarding assault to support the verdict. Counsel wasn't present and Defendant was placed back in [sic] bullpen. Where within minutes the Jury sent a note requesting to see evidence etc.. [sic] and Counsel was not present.... The court also concluded that Caver's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim was without merit and could not satisfy the
835 OPINION/ORDER
As follows: On pages 1 and 2 the spelling of
835 OPINION/ORDER
Appellate attorney's fees are
835 01-6183 -- JOHNSON V. CHAMPION -- 04/26/2002

Three bank employees and one bank customer were killed. Three other bank customers were shot and severely wounded. There was an unsuccessful attempt to shoot an infant girl. Johnson and Jay Wesley Neill were arrested and charged with the offenses in the District Court of Comanche County. Johnson and Neill were tried together in May 1985 and each was convicted of four counts of first degree murder. Concluding that Johnson and Neill were improperly tried together because Johnson's and Neill's defenses were mutually antagonistic
824 OPINION/ORDER
Discovered after oral argument that he was disqualified. Particularly the strength of the rule that such exemptions are construed narrowly against the party seeking them. Inc. (
824 OPINION/ORDER
That McFarland received an evidentiary hearing to which she was not entitled. McFarland was charged in Michigan state court with eleven counts of possession or possession with intent to deliver various drugs. Some of the pills were found in a closet in the southeast bedroom. Yukins No. 01 1360 prescription paraphernalia were found in a file cabinet in the room. Some pills and packets of powder were found in a safe in the room. A sifter that was of the type used in the cocaine trade and that had residue on it. There were four people who could have been linked to the drugs found in the southeast bedroom. The only person who was actually in the house at the time of the search was a man. A man was described in the affidavit supporting the search warrant as
824 OPINION/ORDER
Linnell Harding was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and possession of a stolen motor vehicle in relation to an armed carjacking. Harding then filed a petition for post conviction relief in the state court that was unsuccessful. While Colon was stopped at an intersection. Colon was face toface with the gunman for approximately thirty seconds. The scene was illuminated by streetlights. Harding was present. Harding was arrested originally for disorderly conduct as a result of the disturbance. Harding was charged with armed robbery and possession of a stolen motor vehicle. Who were 5'11
819 OPINION/ORDER
Does the District Court have mandamus jurisdiction over the Territorial Court? The jurisprudence is clear that jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus lies in cases where potential jurisdiction exists. We further conclude that the ROA's command that the relationship between the District Court and local courts mirror the one between state and federal courts is not a bar to the District Court's exercise of mandamus power because the District Court retains appellate jurisdiction over the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands. Which precludes dismissal of criminal cases absent a judicial finding that the dismissal is in good faith. Because this judgment is reserved to prosecutors under the old common law power of nolle prosequi. Rule 128(b) is a substantive rule of law rather than a procedural rule that the local court is authorized to promulgate under the ROA. The local rules of the Territorial Court apply the Federal Rules in circumstances in which there are no valid rules to the contrary. The argument that this rule also has a substantive component is not without force.
819 LOUGH V. BRUNSWICK CORP.
819 OPINION/ORDER
We will decline both invitations. Appellee Jeffrey Warner was sentenced by the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands to four consecutive life sentences. This
819 OPINION/ORDER
An Ohio defendant seeking to file an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim must file an application to reopen in the state court of appeals where the appeal was decided rather than in a state trial court. This Court held that an application to reopen appeal under Rule 26(B) of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure is part of a criminal defendant's direct appeal. The difference matters because a defendant is constitutionally entitled to counsel only during the direct appeal process. 396 (1985) (holding that a defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal). 555 (1987) (holding that a defendant is not constitutionally entitled to counsel at any stage of criminal proceedings beyond a direct appeal as of right). We conclude that White is not controlling in this case. The state court's decision was not contrary to clearly established Federal law. An application for reopening shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.
815 OPINION/ORDER
The Scherzers assert that they were denied effective assistance of counsel during a lengthy trial that lasted from October. All three defendants argue that they were denied their right to a fair trial due to the lack of an impartial jury and several instances of prosecutorial misconduct. I. The underlying facts developed at the trial of the Scherzers and Archer are 3 outlined in the New Jersey Superior Court's exhaustive treatment of their direct appeal. We will not recite them again here. Kevin Scherzer and Kyle Scherzer were indicted along with three co defendants. The prosecution's request to have three of the juvenile defendants. One of whom was Archer. Tried as adults was granted. All eight defendants were indicted in a superceding indictment charging the following: Count (1) conspiracy to commit aggravated sexual assault. All three defendants were found guilty on Counts One and Three. Kevin Scherzer and Christopher Archer were found guilty of Count Two. Kyle Scherzer was found guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted aggravated sexual assault.
809 OPINION/ORDER
Finding that GSI had waived any right it may have had by actively litigating the plaintiff's claims. Have jurisdiction to review the Appellate Division's order affirming the Superior Court's ruling. We agree with both the Superior Court and the Appellate Division that a finding of waiver is compelled under the facts and circumstances of this case. We will affirm the judgment of the Appellate 3 Division. I. Appellant GSI is the owner of real property in the Virgin Islands which it leased to Treasure Bay VI Corp. (
809 OPINION/ORDER
REVERSE the district court's denial of the writ with respect to Petitioner's sentence because Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his sentencing. 1 No. 04 3207 Haliym v. Marcellus Williams and Joann Richards were stabbed to death in their apartment located at 49th and Central in Cleveland. Was visiting his father. At the time and was also stabbed. Was indicted on April 6. A motion for leave to file a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was granted. At approximately 10:00 p.m. as he was leaving his father's apartment to go to the store. He was approached by three men who were in an orange Chevette. Was in the apartment. Speights advised appellant that Williams was in. The three entered and were seated. Richards was present with her baby. At that point Speights was knocked down. He was able to observe appellant stabbing Richards. Michael was stabbing Speights. Also present in the apartment was seven year old Albert Richards. He was in the bedroom and came out in response to the noise and observed the stabbings.
809 OPINION/ORDER
2003 is AMENDED as follows: 1. 2. Line 2: after
809 OPINION/ORDER
Was denied his constitutional right to counsel. The question we consider on appeal is whether it was contrary to or an unreasonable application of settled Supreme Court precedent for the New York state court to dismiss the first tier appeal of a returned fugitive without first appointing counsel given that under New York law and practice such dismissals are discretionary. Taveras was charged in New York state court with murder and other crimes. Taveras was released on his own recognizance. Taveras though absent was tried and 1 2 3 See People v. 440 N.E.2d 1313 (N.Y. 1982) (describing the facts the trial court must consider before deeming a defendant to have knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present as his criminal trial). 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 convicted of two counts of second degree murder (New York Penal Law §§ 125.25[1]. Taveras was sentenced. No action was taken on this appeal until. Taveras was returned to state court on the 1988 bench warrant. His sentence was executed on December 15.
804 OPINION/ORDER
The Batson Court held that
804 OPINION/ORDER
An Order was entered on behalf of this panel denying Northbrook's petition for rehearing. Northbrook's first contention is that the panel opinion ignored
804 OPINION/ORDER
The Batson Court held that
804 OPINION/ORDER
Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in
804 OPINION/ORDER
I. The facts of this case are fully reported in our previous decision in Mapes v. Are only briefly recounted here. Mapes was convicted of aggravated murder in the shooting death of John Allen during a robbery at Allen's bar in Cleveland. The only mitigating evidence Mapes submitted was an unsworn statement that he was only 18 years old at the time of the New Jersey murder. That the conviction was really for manslaughter in light of the sentence he received. That he was not responsible for the actual shooting. Only two of which are in issue. The jurors were told that they were not permitted to consider mitigating evidence related to Mapes's prior murder conviction. The trial court stated that Chatman's answer was sufficient. By commenting on the fact that his mitigation statement was unsworn. Any of the three sentencing issues that are currently the subject of Mapes's habeas corpus petition. Mapes's conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. His petition for state post conviction relief was denied.
804 OPINION/ORDER
The Court of Civil Appeals1 are elected to office in at large partisan elections.2 The judicial power of Alabama is vested exclusively in a
804 OPINION/ORDER
The Court of Civil Appeals1 are elected to office in at large partisan elections. 2 In this case. White The judicial power of Alabama is vested exclusively in a
804 01-6027 -- CARGLE V. MULLIN -- 03/11/2003

Circuit Judge.

798 OPINION/ORDER
Sharp was subsequently sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $49. Sharp argues that: (1) he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to United States v. The government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The plea agreement was accepted by the district court without any objection by Sharp. At least 29 counterfeit checks were negotiated in the greater Cleveland area. Nothing in this paragraph shall act as a bar to the Defendant perfecting any legal remedies Defendant may otherwise have on appeal or collateral attack respecting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. Is there anything that you did not understand? Did you have the opportunity to discuss it with your attorney? There are several exceptions retained. To the extent the Defendant would have any possible claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. That is not waived either. Everything else is waived. Finding that Sharp's guilty plea was
798 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. BACKGROUND After Collins was discovered in possession of 0.10 grams of powder cocaine in March 1996. The prosecutor argued that there were in fact four African American jurors in the venire.
798 OPINION/ORDER
Alleging (among other things) that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and interview exculpatory eyewitnesses to the crimes of which he was convicted and for making promises in his opening statement to the jury that he did not keep. I. The offenses of which Hampton was convicted took place at a rhythm and blues concert held at the Chicago International Amphitheatre on the evening of December 29. While the last band was still playing. Denise M.1 were seated in the fifth row of the theater. None of the perpetrators was detained at the scene. No. 01 4186 3 Hampton was among the individuals that Powell identified. Hampton was arrested on December 31. He was eighteen years old at that time and had never before been arrested. Were charged with the attacks. Six of them pleaded guilty and were sentenced to the short periods of time they had already spent in jail awaiting trial. They were tried jointly before three separate juries. Asserting that his fees were not being paid and that Hampton and his family were not cooperating with him in preparation of the case.
798 OPINION/ORDER
The principal question concerns the validity of an advance waiver of appellate rights contained in a plea agreement.
793 OPINION/ORDER
That court does not state that petitioner's application was denied for failure to identify with particularity the issues upon which the application is based. The petition is procedurally barred. (2) leave to appeal was denied by the New York Court of Appeals without stating that the denial was due to petitioner's failure to identify particular issues for review. The victim was Galdamez's co worker. The prosecutor attempted several times to cross examine Galdamez on statements allegedly made by him to persons who were not to be called as witnesses at the trial.** The judge later instructed the jury to
793 01-6027 -- CARGLE V. MULLIN -- 01/27/2003

Circuit Judge.

793 OPINION/ORDER
Are indispensable to review his claim that the prosecution improperly exercised its peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from the jury. We will reverse because. Although the district court correctly concluded that Simmons' right to due process was violated. It erred by concluding that the violation was cured when Simmons received his direct appeal. Simmons was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 21 to 25 years. Simmons' conviction and sentence were not reviewed for 13 years. Simmons was granted his first appeal as of right. Portions of the trial record including a lengthy in camera voir dire of prospective jurors were missing. His motion was denied without prejudice to his right to challenge the record in the state appellate proceedings. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that its state constitution prohibits the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges
787 OPINION/ORDER
Richey was arrested. Because constitutional errors have undermined our confidence in the reliability of Richey's conviction and sentence. Who was elsewhere at the time. Was alone in the apartment. He was interviewed by the police chief. Richey was arrested for arson and gave a tape recorded interview to the police. Who were joined by Cryer and a prosecutor. Although acknowledging that he was intoxicated and therefore did not remember much of what happened early in the day on June 30. Because gasoline and paint thinner were stored in an unlocked greenhouse across the street from the apartment building. The owner of the greenhouse was unable to determine whether any gasoline or paint thinner was missing. He eventually withdrew his insanity plea and was adjudged competent to stand trial. The heart of the indictment against Richey was the charge of aggravated felony murder. An aggravated felony murderer must have
787 OPINION/ORDER
Who was convicted of rape and robbery and sentenced as a persistent offender to life imprisonment with twenty five years of parole ineligibility. The principal issue at trial was the identity of the rapist. The principal evidence was the victim's post hypnotic identification. The state prosecutor made certain improper arguments during jury summation which were addressed by the trial judge with curative instructions. The issue on appeal is whether these improper arguments deprived Moore of his right to a fair trial. 25 year old M.A. was viciously assaulted by a man in the bedroom of her cottage in Somers Point. Despite the man's assurance she would not be hurt if she did as she was told. M.A. remained in her bed for four hours fear ful the man was still in the house. She arranged to have the police called and. While the bedroom was dark. There was enough outside light
787 OPINION/ORDER
Garcia Lara for speeding as he was driving on Interstate 35 near Emporia. Garcia Lara's prior convictions were for controlled substance offenses as defined in U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(b). Which is guided by the statutory factors delineated in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Is the measure of the appropriate use of a district court's discretion. Asking whether it is reasonable under the 3553(a) factors. Because a legal standard based on reasonableness is inherently fact dependent. We have implicitly acknowledged that we employ an abuse of discretion standard
by reviewing a district court's factual findings for clear error. It is clear that district courts must apply. Our appellate review is guided by. 437 F.3d at 1053 (noting that appellate reasonableness review is
787 OPINION/ORDER
That his confession was involuntary and that he had been unduly prejudiced by 2 No. 04 1741 prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied his petition on the ground that the state court's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law. A certificate was issued on the prosecutorial misconduct claim after the case was docketed in this court. Facts When he was sixteen years old. Ruvalcaba were both armed. Martinez was killed in this exchange of gunfire. Ruvalcaba's brother informed them that he was not there. No one was home and their business card remained in the door. Ruvalcaba was placed in a police station interview room and read his Miranda rights by the interrogating officers. A youth officer was not present initially. One later arrived and was in the room during a brief conversation in which Mr. Again the officers were unsuccessful. Ruvalcaba was returned to the interview room. Ruvalcaba whether he was hungry or needed to use the restroom. Detective Moser and a youth officer were present while the assistant state's attorney.
783 OPINION/ORDER
We have concluded contrary to the District Court of the Virgin Islands. There is no statutory or decisional bar preventing restitution from being ordered when the defendant must also serve time in prison and is not on probation. It is the obligation of the sentencing court to order restitution providing. Restitution and the amount thereof is deemed appropriate. Was sentenced to 27 years and $13. 2000.1 The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Territorial Court may order a convicted defendant to pay restitution without first sentencing him to probation. We will hold that it may. We will therefore reverse the Appellate Division's judgment vacating the order of restitution. In the inquiry we have recognized in Government of the Virgin Islands v. The particulars of his crimes are not relevant to this appeal. So they will not be repeated in detail here. Marsham was charged with seven counts of third degree burglary. Which will be addressed by a subsequent panel of this Court. We consider whether we have jurisdiction to hear this case.
783 OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal from an order of the district court imposing heavy sanctions upon a law firm. Is charged in the underlying complaint with having poisoned
783 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge.
776 OPINION/ORDER
Habeas petitioners and § 2255 movants have sought to circumvent the AEDPA's restrictions on second round collateral attacks in federal courts. One of the most popular vehicles used in the attempted end runs is a Fed. We entered an order granting hearing or rehearing en banc in three cases in order to answer some common questions that have arisen about the use of Rule 60(b) motions to obtain relief from judgments that denied § 2254 relief (in two of the cases before us). Which was after this case was submitted for decision. That is. 4) was it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the Rule 60(b) motion in his case? In the sequence in which the panel decisions or orders were issued in them. A. A decade ago at a retrial Stephen Mobley was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of a Domino's Pizza employee during an armed robbery. Who had been the district attorney when the prosecution began but no longer was. He told the jury that
776 OPINION/ORDER
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. The United States Supreme Court
776 OPINION/ORDER
2006) Zulima Farber is automatically substituted as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c)(2). He also argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because (1) he was denied a speedy trial. (2) his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue his right to a speedy trial. (3) he was effectively denied his right to counsel because he was unrepresented at a critical stage of the proceedings while he was in custody on capital charges. We will affirm because we conclude that the District Court applied the correct standard of review in determining that the Appellate Division's decision was not
776 OPINION/ORDER
George Franklin was found guilty of two counts of aggravated burglary and one count of aggravated murder and was sentenced to death. Franklin was found to have two viable claims: service of a biased juror and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. All other claims are forfeited on appeal and are not before this court. I Franklin was convicted of the brutal murder of Gerald Strauss in his Cincinnati home on the evening of July 23. When that request was denied without an opinion. A decision that was affirmed by the Hamilton County Court of Appeals. His motion was denied for failure to file within the ninety day time limit. The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant the requested writ of habeas corpus with respect to Franklin's claim that his convictions and sentences were unconstitutional because one of the jurors could not impartially apply the law. A claim the magistrate found was not procedurally barred because Franklin had received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct appeal.
776 00-6024 -- NEILL V. GIBSON -- 12/07/2001

Circuit Judges.

776 OPINION/ORDER
Was ordered to serve a prison term of thirty years. Contending that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek the suppression of his post arrest statement. Gilbert was fourteen years old at the time of his arrest. Gilbert contends that his statement was involuntary and would have been suppressed. He would have gone to trial rather than pleading guilty. Heard was shot because he was mistakenly believed by gang members to be affiliated with a rival gang. He was the individual who identified Heard as a rival gang member and. If the State's evidence is credited. Heard was shot in Chicago late in the evening of July 4. He was on his way to a barbeque along with two friends. Lanier and Stringer were driving to the barbeque together in one car. While Heard was following them in his mother's car. The barbeque was taking place in the 8400 block of South Throop Street in Chicago. Was standing on a sidewalk nearby with other gang members. Gilbert walked up to the car and noticed that Heard was wearing a baseballstyle cap with the bill of the cap tilted toward his right ear.
776 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW Petitioner Michael Reese (
770 OPINION/ORDER
Arguing his notice of appeal was timely but ignoring the fee requirements. I We have stated that the PLRA
770 OPINION/ORDER
Senior Judge Butzner wrote a dissenting opinion. *Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 BELL v. Bell was convicted by a jury in North Carolina of fifty eight counts of sexual misconduct comprised of eight counts of first degree rape. Because Bell's petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed after the April 24. 1602 (2000). 2 The record indicates that twenty seven additional counts were dismissed during the course of the trial. 1 BELL v. When Wendy was awakened on a Saturday morning by Bell. Wendy was twelve years old and in the sixth grade. Bell was fiftyfive years old. The threat was effective. While his wife was sleeping or at work. Both of whom lived nearby and were friends of Wendy. Toni also testified that she was present at Bell's home on one occasion when he sexually molested Wendy. Toni was eleven years old when the abuse began. Bell's wife was cooking dinner and Vicki. Vicki was twelve years old. JARVIS hoping Bell would leave Wendy alone if Vicki was present.
763 OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse in part and affirm in part. The circumstances leading to Walker's arrest and conviction are as follows:1 Walker arrived in the Virgin Islands from his home in Atlanta. Walker and Gunn were thereafter charged with credit card fraud and possession of stolen property. 1. Although the jurors may have been amused by Walker's testimony. They were not persuaded by it. The jury was apparently more impressed by the proof of Walker's guilt than by his credibility. He was convicted on all counts. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.S 3731. We review the sentence that was imposed for abuse of discretion inasmuch as it did not exceed the statutory limits of the applicable statute. Walker was convicted of two counts of violating 14 V.I.C. The Appellate Division reasoned that the
763 OPINION/ORDER
The question before us in this appeal is a narrow procedural one: can this court review the district court's decision to remand the case to the state court in which it was originally filed? We conclude that the best way to interpret the district court's order is as one finding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over the claims that were 2 Nos. 01 3081 & 01 3418 remanded. Even if we are wrong and the order was simply a decision to remand all supplemental state claims to the state court. We would exercise our jurisdiction to find that there was no abuse of discretion in that decision. Was filed in Illinois state court by injured passengers and the estates of those killed as a result of the collision. The additional defendants were the manufacturers. Two from that group are relevant to this appeal: Illinois Central. GE claimed that any lawsuit these plaintiffs were bringing was inevitably and necessarily based on a federal question. Thus removal was available under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b).). Which is a federal instrumentality.
763 OPINION/ORDER
Was harmless error. BACKGROUND The facts of the case are derived largely from the factual account in the district court decision. Which in turn was drawn from the Appellate Division's decision affirming Zappulla's conviction. Zappulla was arrested at the Golden Gate Inn in Brooklyn. The police officers discovered the fur coat that was 2 reported stolen and the dead body of a prostitute. Was hit by a car and taken to the hospital. Zappulla was again questioned. Although this time he was not warned about his Miranda rights and was questioned about the more serious crime of murder. The 3 prosecutor emphasized how the confession was credible and tied in with other evidence in the case and how it provided vital evidence of motive. The court found that the confession was defective because 24 hours had elapsed between the initial questioning of Zappulla. Where Miranda warnings were given. Where the officers questioned him without Miranda warnings about a different crime and custody was not continuous. Found that failure to suppress the confession was harmless in light of the
763 OPINION/ORDER
Because the unpublished order that was reversed by the Court comprised only two substantive sentences. Is entitled to an explanation of this court's prior action. Hetzel also alleged that she was retaliated against for attempting to assert her right not to be discriminated against. 000 was grossly excessive when compared to the limited evidence of harm presented at trial and would result in a serious `miscarriage of justice' if upheld.
757 OPINION/ORDER
757 OPINION/ORDER
On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were David J. While the appeal was pending before our court. Arguing that the RO should have assigned an effective date of September 10. Under which new and material evidence received prior to an
757 OPINION/ORDER
Because he failed to appeal the denial of his 2255 motion where the same ineffective assistance of counsel argument was rejected. Contreras raised a number of issues including his assertion that both his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective.(1) (By raising the (1) The other issues that Contreras raised in his 2255 motion included: (1) improper admission of hearsay testimony at trial. (3) the drug quantity used to determine his sentence was not calculated correctly. Counsel was identifying his own shortcomings as appellate counsel.). Contreras argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for causing his appeal to be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The district court specifically concluded that Contreras had failed to establish that his appellate counsel was ineffective. Were both the result of the ineffective assistance of his original appellate counsel. Contreras argues that we should reinstate his direct appeal because the dismissal of his direct appeal was the result of his original appellate attorney's ineffectiveness and deceit.
757 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing all of the claims asserted in the pro se complaint filed by Samuel T. Poole's notice of appeal was not filed on time. Poole claims is his son. We are required to consider whether we have appellate jurisdiction. The timeliness of an appeal is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite. Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure generally requires a notice of appeal to be
750 OPINION/ORDER
At issue in this appeal is Congress's deceptively simple prohibition on our review of district court remand orders. Asking that the court require Purdue to notify people who have received OxyContin of its potential harm. DaWalt sought to ensure that the claims would be heard in state court by stipulating that
750 OPINION/ORDER
Published opinion filed 12/2/99 is vacated Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98 7002 (CA 97 232 5 H) January 4. Line 3 of second indented quotation the phrase
750 03-5008 -- CANNON V. MULLIN -- 09/13/2004

Circuit Judge.

750 OPINION/ORDER
The Guam Supreme Court concluded that this factual finding was clearly erroneous and reversed the award. This judgment was affirmed by the Guam Supreme Court. Haeuser contends that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that he mitigated damages and that the Guam Supreme Court erred in reversing the trial court's previous award to him. The Department argues that Haeuser can contest only the Supreme Court's subsequent decision to affirm the Superior Court's actions on remand and is barred from challenging the Supreme Court's earlier decision because Haeuser did not seek review by this court at that time. We may reverse the Supreme Court only if it commits manifest error or is inescapably wrong. Because we hold that the Guam Supreme Court committed manifest error in this case in reversing the Guam Superior Court's findings of fact without completing a review of the evidence upon which those finding were based. I. BACKGROUND This is the second visit by this case to our court. Assistant attorneys general were placed in the
750 OPINION/ORDER
Neil Hunterson was convicted of first degree murder and kidnaping in 1972. He was sentenced to two life terms of imprisonment. He was paroled. His parole was revoked on November 1. 1 and a five year future eligibility term (
744 OPINION/ORDER
Appellant pled nolo contendere in Florida state court to second degree murder and was sentenced to 85 years' imprisonment. Appellant was extradited to Florida to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Concluding Appellant was procedurally barred from relitigating issues that had already been raised in his mandamus petition and denying Appellant's remaining claims on the merits. Since he alleges he is in custody pursuant to a state judgment in violation of his constitutional rights. His appropriate avenue for relief is under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
744 02-6397A -- IVES V. BOONE -- 05/03/2004

Senior Circuit Judge.

744 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. I. Background Florencio Rolan was convicted in Pennsylvania state court of first degree murder and of possession of an instrument of crime for the 1983 death of Paulino Santiago. The Commonwealth's theory of the crime was that Rolan shot and killed Santiago during an attempted robbery of the proceeds of a five dollar drug deal. Rolan was sentenced to death by a jury. The penalty phase was retried and. Rolan was re sentenced to life imprisonment. The crux of Rolan's ineffective assistance claim was that his trial counsel. Failed to investigate two witnesses who would have supported Rolan's self defense claim. Is that he and his cousin. Were involved in a dispute with brothers. The Santiago brothers were selling marijuana. He was carrying what Rolan believed to be a knife. Goldstein asked Rolan whether there were any people with whom he should speak about the crime. Rolan claims that he did not tell Goldstein that Vargas and Aponte were alibi witnesses but instead that he wanted to call them in furtherance of his self defense claim.
744 OPINION/ORDER
This court granted Lordi a certificate of appealability solely on the issues of whether his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective due to a conflict of interest. Whether Lordi was constitutionally deprived of an impartial jury due to the trial court's decision not to investigate an allegation of a juror's bias. The district court is AFFIRMED. Lordi was indicted on eighteen criminal counts. The charge was reduced to a misdemeanor of falsification. The government intended to have Veneroso testify in regard to how Lordi would direct Veneroso to engage in personal (e.g. Gathering petitions) chores while he was being paid by the county. Who initially warned D'Apolito that he thought it was necessary to seek his removal from the case due to the potential conflict until D'Apolito shared his research with him. Which was dismissive of the entire issue. The parties and court intended to put the issue on the record when a court reporter was available. The cross examination was relatively friendly with D'Apolito accepting several re characterizations of his questions by Veneroso.
744 WHITE V. ALABAMA

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > White v. Are elected to office in at large partisan elections.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994135.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 99 4135 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Her plea agreement contained an appellate waiver provision waiving her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4316.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have been audited by the Internal Revenue Service virtually. Every year since Richard Nixon was President. Kanter was a wellknown and accomplished tax and estate lawyer. Among Kanter's clients was the Pritzker family of Hyatt Corporation fame. Kanter was also an accomplished businessman. Was an expert on the subject of trusts and estate planning. His estate was subsequently substituted as the principal party to this litigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1468.html">LAITRAM CORP. V. NEC CORPORATION<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1731.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was granted. Underlying Facts and Schultz's Murder Trial Schultz was born in 1976 in Watseka. To say that his childhood was a troubled one is an understatement. When Schultz was a young boy. Schultz spent two weeks in a psychiatric hospital and was diagnosed with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-7024.man.html">WHITE V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. Are elected to office in at large partisan elections.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0073p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murdock was charged in an eleven count indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Defendant waives any right he may have to appeal his conviction or sentence. Including any right under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to appeal on the grounds that the sentence was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines. Murdock's Total Offense Level was 14 and his Criminal History Category was IV. Alleging that it impermissibly referenced documents which Murdock added to the record while the case was on appeal. The appellate waiver provision was not discussed. 1 No. 03 1811 United States v. A second levy was placed on Pitts' salary in June 1999. It was for his conduct in causing the second release of levy to be sent that Murdock was convicted. The check was drawn on the closed bank account of a trucking company Murdock purchased in 1997. Murdock maintains that the IRS erred in finding Pitts was in arrears. 000 at the time Murdock committed the offense for which he was convicted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-6793.man.html">HILL V. JONES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hill v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> A. <i>The Crime</i><p> <p> Walter Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the January 1977 murders of Willie Mae Hammock. Was the brother of Lois Tatum. Was often present at the house while patrons. Were gambling and drinking.<p> Hill apparently developed a romantic interest in Toni and quarreled with Ms. Hill was referring to Toni's 16 year old brother Robert.<p> Hill and Toni drove to another house to get Robert. Threatened to jump from the car when Hill was evasive about their destination. Hill told Nunnery that he was a fugitive from Alabama who had just killed three people and would kill again. Hill was arrested in the disabled car on the side of the road. Hill was 45 years old and had spent most of his adult life incarcerated. Hill was convicted of second degree murder in an Alabama state court and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He was released from custody in 1960. A year later was convicted in federal court in Alabama of kidnapping and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0958p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will address the two cases together. We will reverse. Warner Elveth Warner was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance in violation of V.I. Warner contended that he was prejudiced by a lengthy delay between his plea of guilty and sentencing. The reason for the delay was that when this matter was first scheduled for sentencing. Warner renewed his argument that he was prejudiced by the lengthy delay between his plea and sentencing. Monsanto Swan Jacqueline Monsanto Swan was arrested and charged with misappropriating public monies to her own use in violation of V.I. Stated that it was going to withhold sentence pursuant to § 3721 because Monsanto Swan was expecting a baby. Jurisdiction in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands was predicated upon V.I. The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have such appellate jurisdiction over the courts of the Virgin Islands established by local law to the extent now or hereafter prescribed by local law: Provided. The applicable local law conferring jurisdiction upon the appellate division of the district court is V.I. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-6397.htm">02-6397 -- IVES V. BOONE -- 05/03/2004<BR></A><BR> The district court rejected eight of the nine claims because they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0115n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court ordered Koras to be released from custody unless the state court schedules an evidentiary hearing within ninety days to determine whether Koras was improperly interrogated in violation of Edwards v. Koras cross appeals the district court's decision denying habeas relief for his other remaining claims on the ground that they are barred by procedural default. Although all of Koras's claims were procedurally defaulted in state court. Koras had established cause and prejudice with respect to the Edwards claim because his trial and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective. Koras was subsequently charged for Tindell's death. Koras was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty five to fifty years' imprisonment. Alleging that 1) the inculpatory statements he made to police were erroneously admitted because the statements were involuntarily given or coerced. His application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court was denied. His confession was improperly admitted into evidence because he had previously invoked and was denied his right to have counsel present during his interrogation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0366p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnnie Baston was sentenced to death for the robbery and murder of Chong Mah. Baston argues that the sentencing court considered improper aggravating factors and failed to consider the correct mitigating factors when determining whether a sentence of death was appropriate. Bagley Page 2 I Baston was sentenced to death for the murder of Chong Mah on March 21. He was indicted and convicted on three counts: 1) aggravated murder in violation of Ohio Rev. He was convicted on all counts on February 15. Mah was working at one of their stores. It was later determined that Mah had been shot in the back of the head from a range of two to three inches. When Baston was arrested. He was carrying a gun that proved to be the murder weapon. Told police that an accomplice named Ray was responsible for the murder. The defense argued that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-5154.htm">97-5154 -- NEWSTED V. GIBSON -- 10/15/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-6793.man.html">HILL V. JONES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hill v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> A. <i>The Crime</i><p> <p> Walter Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the January 1977 murders of Willie Mae Hammock. Was the brother of Lois Tatum. Was often present at the house while patrons. Were gambling and drinking.<p> Hill apparently developed a romantic interest in Toni and quarreled with Ms. Hill was referring to Toni's 16 year old brother Robert.<p> Hill and Toni drove to another house to get Robert. Threatened to jump from the car when Hill was evasive about their destination. Hill told Nunnery that he was a fugitive from Alabama who had just killed three people and would kill again. Hill was arrested in the disabled car on the side of the road. Hill was 45 years old and had spent most of his adult life incarcerated. Hill was convicted of second degree murder in an Alabama state court and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He was released from custody in 1960. A year later was convicted in federal court in Alabama of kidnapping and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-7037.html">RAYMOND GALLEGOS, V. ANTHPNY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4064.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When it became apparent that the appeal was untimely. Appellee's motion to waive oral argument is granted. Appellant's motion for oral argument is denied. The case is ordered submitted on the briefs. (1) The BAP issued a show cause order and then dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 8002(c) Ruling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3104.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When asked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7362E8AE987F2CDA88256CD90080AD4E/$file/0135869.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether we may exercise our pendent appellate jurisdiction to review. Because resolution of the Younger abstention issue is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-6204.htm">00-6204 -- HAWKINS V. MULLIN -- 05/22/2002<BR></A><BR> Which is not a specifically enumerated felony supporting a first degree murder conviction under Oklahoma law. We hold that the Oklahoma appellate court's interpretation was not unforeseeable and therefore did not deprive Hawkins of due process. Were also in the car at the time. His original plan was to kidnap Thompson and hold her for ransom. Were staying with the couple at that time. <p> At the house. 2) Thompson's murder was especially heinous. Hawkins is a continuing threat to society. Hawkins will be entitled to habeas relief only if he can establish that the state courts' resolution of his claims was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051447p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Lydia Cooper contends her criminal sentence was unreasonable under United States v. At 2 issue is the imposition of criminal sentences post Booker. We will affirm. Or a guidelines range of 151 to 181 months.1 Cooper was sentenced on January 31. Which held that the federal sentencing guidelines are advisory. 125 S. Pre guidelines sentences were based on the facts of the crime. Concurrent sentences for the prior offenses 6 to 23 months incarceration and two years probation and was paroled after serving the minimum sentence. personal characteristics. These are all found in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1). Congress added sentencing guidelines (§ 3553(a)(4)) that were specific. That the guidelines are now advisory provides some play in the joints of the sentencing scheme. District judges are still asked to resolve the tension between broad principles. The court found an additional departure was not warranted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051447pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Lydia Cooper contends her criminal sentence was unreasonable under United States v. At 2 issue is the imposition of criminal sentences post Booker. We will affirm. Or a guidelines range of 151 to 181 months.1 Cooper was sentenced on January 31. Which held that the federal sentencing guidelines are advisory. 125 S. Pre guidelines sentences were based on the facts of the crime. Concurrent sentences for the prior offenses 6 to 23 months incarceration and two years probation and was paroled after serving the minimum sentence. personal characteristics. These are all found in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1). Congress added sentencing guidelines (§ 3553(a)(4)) that were specific. That the guidelines are now advisory provides some play in the joints of the sentencing scheme. District judges are still asked to resolve the tension between broad principles. The court found an additional departure was not warranted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF3286801B95425B88256D0B007A6A6F/$file/0135869.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 4974 MEREDITH v. Delete the paragraph on pages 815 16 that begins </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-7086a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0MjYtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0426-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was not procedurally barred. That reconstruction of the prosecutor's reasons for excluding certain minority jurors was possible. Is not barred by procedural default. That reconstruction of the prosecutor's non discriminatory reasons for peremptorily challenging certain minority jurors was possible. Petitioner David Green was arrested in Jamaica. He was subsequently charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 220.39[1] and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 220.03. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Green was tried in Supreme Court. The jury was chosen using the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0081p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For which he was awarded attorney's fees as a prevailing party. An amended judgment was entered by the district court. Manville then filed an application for appellate fees which was granted. This court does not have jurisdiction to consider the district court's award of these fees. Manville argues that the Prison Litigation Reform Act does not apply because an appeal by the defendant is not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/003628.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are also asked to review that court's conclusion that the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands is not empowered to issue subpoenas in a criminal investigation after a defendant has been arrested and charged with a criminal offense. Tariq and 3 Blanche were at one time married. A detailed account of the circumstances surrounding that killing is set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Division of the Virgin Islands that is the subject of this appeal. It is sufficient to note that at the time of the stabbing. Blanche Finney was romantically involved with Frank Fonseca. Jesse and Blanche were both security guards at the hotel where they resided. Blanche and Frank Fonseca during which Tariq was repeatedly stabbed. Blanche and Jesse Finney were arrested along with Frank Fonseca. Blanche was admitted to a local hospital for treatment of serious physical injuries unrelated to the stabbing of Tariq. Those statements were transcribed in her medical record. Blanche Finney and Frank Fonseca were jointly tried before a jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-6381a.htm">98-6381A -- BERGET V. GIBSON -- 08/05/1999<BR></A><BR> The correct citation is <strong><em>Foster v. The matter of sentencing was determined at a bench trial resulting in a death penalty on the murder count. We affirm the judgment of the district court. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Petitioner Roger James Berget and co defendant Mikell Smith are accused of carjacking and then murdering Rick Patterson. The facts of the murder are recounted in the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals: <p> During the late night hours of October 19. Fearing that Patterson was still alive and could crawl away. Another shot was fired. <p> <strong><em>Berget v. The trial court held a sentencing hearing during which evidence was presented as to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The state trial court found four aggravating circumstances: (1) the crime was committed for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest and prosecution. (4) the murder was especially heinous. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on all claims raised in the petition. <p> <center><strong>STANDARDS OF REVIEW</strong></center> <p> The first issue presented in this case is whether the more stringent standards of review of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) apply. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/981906.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold today that because the discussion on appellate jurisdiction in Forney is founded upon specific language located within the Social Security Act. We will dismiss Kreider's appeal (No. 98 1982) for lack of jurisdiction. We find that we do have appellate jurisdiction over the timely appeal filed by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/993865.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001) *This matter was argued on June 22. The case was reassigned on June 30. The issue presented in this appeal is whether a state court judgment. The state court declaratory judgment requiring Horsehead to indemnify Paramount is sufficiently final to be given pr eclusive effect. Despite the fact that damages have yet to be decided. We find that the scope of the indemnity provision is sufficiently broad to encompass the identical issues in the federal CERCLA contribution case. I. Background At the heart of this appeal is the interplay between two sources of liability for the cost to remedy environmental damage a contractual indemnification pr ovision and statutory liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Those clauses will be interpreted under traditional contract law principles. Or a detriment to the promisee the indemnification clause is enforceable. 419 N.E.2d 332 (N.Y. 1981) (holding that a written promise to indemnify co shar eholders against disproportionate loss was supported by legally sufficient consideration and therefore was enfor ceable). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98260AFB01FBD52888256CB60050B330/$file/0135412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the parties have engaged in manipulation to manufacture appellate jurisdiction after the district court's grant of partial summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND Dastar was sued by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Avoids multiplicity of litigation and minimizes delay by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-6381.htm">98-6381 -- BERGET V. GIBSON -- 08/05/1999<BR></A><BR> The matter of sentencing was determined at a bench trial resulting in a death penalty on the murder count. We affirm the judgment of the district court. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Petitioner Roger James Berget and co defendant Mikell Smith are accused of carjacking and then murdering Rick Patterson. The facts of the murder are recounted in the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals: <p> During the late night hours of October 19. Fearing that Patterson was still alive and could crawl away. Another shot was fired. <p> <strong><em>Berget v. The trial court held a sentencing hearing during which evidence was presented as to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The state trial court found four aggravating circumstances: (1) the crime was committed for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest and prosecution. (4) the murder was especially heinous. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on all claims raised in the petition. <p> <center><strong>STANDARDS OF REVIEW</strong></center> <p> The first issue presented in this case is whether the more stringent standards of review of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) apply. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/27A3BC8B6340EDFB8825700C007EA42E/$file/0250289.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the sentence applicable under the Sentencing Guidelines was life. The time limits on filing a notice of appeal are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0403p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we reluctantly conclude that no other avenue of federal relief is available to Patterson at this stage. I. BACKGROUND Patterson was convicted of involuntary manslaughter based on child endangering in July of 1997. He was sentenced to a term of between 10 and 25 years in prison. His wife Lisa was convicted of misdemeanor child endangering and received a sentence of six months in prison. Patterson argued that the trial court had erred in excluding the expert testimony of a criminologist proffered by Patterson and that his conviction was unconstitutional because the evidence was insufficient to sustain it. The appellate court discussed the difference between an allegation that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction and the argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. It then concluded: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0240p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clarence Roberts was convicted of aggravated robbery and murder in the Court of Common Pleas for Guernsey County. This Court granted Roberts a certificate of appealability with respect to the following claims: (1) whether Roberts was deprived of a fair trial. (2) whether Roberts was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel when his appellate counsel failed to raise as error the trial court's order that alternate jurors be present during deliberations. I. Clarence Roberts was charged with one count of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated murder with a death penalty specification. Who were present during both the guilt and penalty phase deliberations. Were instructed to not participate in the deliberations. Neither alternate juror was ever called to substitute for a regular juror. Roberts was sentenced to ten years on the robbery charge and life imprisonment on the murder charge. Section 2254(d) of title 28 of the United States Code sets forth the standard for granting a writ of habeas corpus: An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim­ (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-6024.htm">00-6024 -- NEILL V. GIBSON -- 08/27/2001<BR></A><BR> Were roommates involved in a homosexual relationship. They were having serious financial difficulties. One woman was seven months pregnant. Was out of ammunition. <p> Neill and Johnson then flew to San Francisco. The murders were especially heinous. Will not be entitled to habeas relief unless he can establish that the state court resolved his claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-6370.htm">98-6370 -- JONES V. GIBSON -- 02/15/2000<BR></A><BR> Petitioner asserts the following grounds for relief: (1) there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the unconstitutionally applied heinous. (2) his right to remain silent and his right to confrontation were violated. 735 (1990) (per curiam) (holding federal courts may overturn state court factual determinations only upon concluding they are not fairly supported by record). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEA2D7F81F74610E88256CCD006116F2/$file/0070724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended to replace the line TROTT. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412795.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The key issue in this habeas corpus appeal is whether counsel for Angel Nieves Diaz. Was ineffective for not arguing. That Diaz was absent from several pretrial hearings and other discussions among the trial court and counsel. Because the minor proceedings from which Diaz was absent were outside the presence of the jury. No objection was made. Diaz was not prejudiced by his absences. We also conclude that Diaz's other arguments are meritless. I. BACKGROUND Angel Nieves Diaz was one of three men who robbed the Velvet Swing Lounge in Miami. Were tried in a Miami court almost six years to the day after they committed their crimes. 2 Diaz was represented by counsel until the moment before opening arguments began. The trial judge was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2617.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Martize Dellinger was convicted in Illinois state court of two counts of attempted murder. Kareem Muhammad shot into a group of people running away from them who were apparently rival gang members and their girlfriends. Powell and Muhammad are all associated with the Vice Lords street gang. Were shot and suffered relatively minor injuries. Both women testified that they were sitting on Ms. Baker was shot in the buttocks. Both were taken to a hospital. These three men were tried in a separate. He stated that he was 17 years old and a member of the Vice Lords street gang. He stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E47F311119E5391B88256CEF00789A69/$file/0117461.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to disentangle the threads woven by these separate court systems as they have independently sought to resolve the same core conflict. Our task in the current chapter of the dispute is to determine the combined preclusive effect. Complicating the inquiry is that the state appellate opinion. FACTUAL BACKGROUND At the root of all the court battles involved in this case is friction between Plaintiff/Appellant Sherol DiRuzza and cer 4166 DIRUZZA v. DiRuzza was employed by the Sheriff's Department as a Deputy Sheriff. Heard was victorious. As was Defendant/Appellee Jerry Floyd. DiRuzza was allegedly assaulted by her fiance. DiRuzza was the subject of a disciplinary hearing conducted by Blanusa that resulted in her being suspended for thirty days without pay. DiRuzza was charged with a felony count of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA2NDEtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0641-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) denying the defendants appellants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds after a jury verdict was rendered against them but before retrial as to the amount of punitive damages. Rejecting their claim of qualified immunity and their contention that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the jury to find them liable to Britt under section 1985(3). Goord and Connolly now bring an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds. and Connolly also urge us to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's decision that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support liability under section 1985(3). We conclude that we have jurisdiction to Goord decide this appeal insofar as the appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the basis of the jury's answers to questions posed on a special verdict sheet. We also conclude that the appellants' argument is without merit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA2MDQtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0604-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Denying petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the grounds that petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted. Smith was convicted by a jury in Suffolk County Court of second degree murder in connection with the 1996 shooting death of Jacob Seavey. The district court denied the petition but issued a Certificate of Appealability on the issue of the admissibility of a 911 tape that was excluded from evidence at trial. We hold that the district court correctly denied the petition because the issue was procedurally defaulted. Was found guilty by a jury in Suffolk County Court of intentionally murdering Jacob Seavey. Seavey was killed instantly by a single gunshot at Smith's home in Brentwood. Who was quiet and cooperative. The two were talking in Smith's bedroom when Seavey received a page from his mother. Smith went to the bathroom and was 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 there for about ten minutes. Seavey was standing immediately outside in the hallway. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982742P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stephen Sugarbaker is a general surgeon who practiced in Jefferson City. Sugarbaker contends that he was the victim of a conspiracy to control the market for medical services in the Jefferson City area. The Executive Committee is responsible for providing recommendations to the SSM Board of Directors regarding medical staff privileges. Sugarbaker was again permitted to present evidence on his own behalf. The Appellate Review Committee reviews </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1162.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA2NDEtcHIgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-0641-pr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) denying the defendants appellants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds after a jury verdict was rendered against them but before retrial as to the amount of punitive damages. Rejecting their claim of qualified immunity and their contention that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the jury to find them liable to Britt under section 1985(3). Goord and Connolly now bring an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds. and Connolly also urge us to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's decision that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support liability under section 1985(3). We conclude that we have jurisdiction to Goord decide this appeal insofar as the appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the basis of the jury's answers to questions posed on a special verdict sheet. We also conclude that the appellants' argument is without merit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/415240927EA7598F88256CCC005B6A86/$file/0070724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0916n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnson was employed by MetroHealth Medical Center a political subdivision of Ohio until April 5. When she was terminated for violating an employee attendance policy. The grievance was submitted to arbitration. Johnson was denied lost wages for the period between her termination and reinstatement. The court held that Johnson lacked standing to challenge the outcome of the arbitration because she was not formally a party to it: the arbitration was between MetroHealth Medical Center and Johnson's union. Even though the union was acting on Johnson's behalf. The Eighth Appellate District affirmed because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI1NjBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2560_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A habeas court must evaluate whether that analysis was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent governing direct review of constitutional error. That the state court's holding in this case that the putative error was harmless was not unreasonable. Such error was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of petitioner's guilt. The error would not have been harmless. The prosecution's central theory was that the episode involved three shooters rather than two. The testimony of several noncooperating witnesses was more equivocal. Held that the call was sufficiently contemporaneous with the described event to qualify for admission under New York's present sense impression exception. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-4379.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Gen. The relevant portions of the district court's opinion are attached as an appendix.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> APPENDIX<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <p> <p> SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA <p> <p> IN RE: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 1993</i><p> <p> BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Atlantic Gulf's Motion to Enforce Executory Contract. Currently pending before the Court are three motions: (1) Appellee General Development Corporation's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6158.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> Petitioner Appellant Glen Dale Hammon ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/02-1060a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-6309.htm">98-6309 -- BOYD V. WARD -- 06/08/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07432B45A25F9CF388256E5A00707CDC/$file/9956472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Rice is an 13441 unpublished disposition. Is available on Westlaw#FC# and LEXIS#FC#. It is marked with the following notice: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0315p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hicks was convicted after a trial by jury of two counts of aggravated murder. He was sentenced to death. Who was Ghitana's mother and his mother in law. He knew that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4306A915C7FD414688256A46005D0DEB/$file/9935888.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Washington Court of Appeals appointed new counsel to represent convicted defendant Reno Tamalini while his appeal was pending despite Tamalini's Sixth Amendment objection to the substitution. Whether we have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge predicated upon the Fourteenth Amendment. We have appellate jurisdiction over Tamalini's appeal of the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 (2000). Averred that: (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411554.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is that the district court cannot order them to post such a bond. Their fall back position is that the court cannot do it without making a finding consistent with Christiansburg Garment Co. v. That the would be appeal is frivolous. In July 2002 Greer filed a new lawsuit alleging that he had been fired by New Process Steel after the original action was filed and that the firing was retaliatory. The new lawsuit was consolidated with the original one. Which was granted on motion of the defendant. Which was apparently made as a result of some comments by the plaintiffs or their attorneys to the jurors. 3 Thereafter. On Greer's own motion his retaliation claim was dismissed. The defendant sought to have the bond cover its anticipated appellate attorney's fees as well as the other costs it would incur as a result of the appeal. The motion was accompanied by affidavits estimating the amount of those attorney's fees. 000 of that amount was to cover the attorney's fees the defendant estimated it would incur in the appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D868839A66AD6B7C88256E5A00707B27/$file/9935888.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Washington Court of Appeals appointed new counsel to represent convicted defendant Reno Tamalini while his appeal was pending despite Tamalini's Sixth Amendment objection to the substitution. Whether we have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge predicated upon the Fourteenth Amendment. We have appellate jurisdiction over Tamalini's appeal of the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 (2000). Averred that: (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0041n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel when his attorney failed on direct appeal to challenge the trial court's improper imposition of consecutive sentences. That Minor obtained the handgun that was ultimately used to commit the crimes. Three years because a firearm was used in the commission of the crimes. That his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to appeal the trial court's allegedly improper imposition of consecutive sentences. Wilson was denied the right to effective assistance of trial counsel. (2) he was denied the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The only issue now before us is whether Minor received constitutionally ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel when his attorney failed to challenge his sentence on direct appeal. Is applicable only to habeas claims that were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-3332.html">BEATRICE M. ROSATO V. OPM<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were Frank W. Of counsel was Earl A. We affirm.</p> <p>I</p> <p>Beatrice and Mario Rosato were divorced in Connecticut on July 11. Rosato was entitled to certain benefits. Or legal separation.</p> <p>5 U.S.C. 8345(j)(1) (1994).</p> <p>It is well settled that section 8345(j)(1) ". Authorizes [OPM] to comply with an appropriate court decree of divorce or property settlement of an employee who is entitled to payments pursuant to the Civil Service Retirement System.". OPM has promulgated regulations that define when an order of divorce or property settlement is a ". The court order must identify the retirement system under which the annuity exists and expressly state the portion to which the former spouse is entitled under the court order. OPM will not supply missing provisions. The statute and rules are clear: OPM will not look behind a state court divorce decree or property settlement order to ascertain the intent of the parties. OPM will follow its prescriptions. An order lacking the requisite specificity will be rejected by OPM. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AE08EE375DF613B88256AD1005BFD3B/$file/9956472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Rice is an 13441 unpublished disposition. Is available on Westlaw#FC# and LEXIS#FC#. It is marked with the following notice: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI1NjBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2560_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A habeas court must evaluate whether that analysis was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent governing direct review of constitutional error. That the state court's holding in this case that the putative error was harmless was not unreasonable. Such error was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of petitioner's guilt. The error would not have been harmless. The prosecution's central theory was that the episode involved three shooters rather than two. The testimony of several noncooperating witnesses was more equivocal. Held that the call was sufficiently contemporaneous with the described event to qualify for admission under New York's present sense impression exception. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-4379.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Gen. The relevant portions of the district court's opinion are attached as an appendix.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> APPENDIX<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <p> <p> SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA <p> <p> IN RE: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 1993</i><p> <p> BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Atlantic Gulf's Motion to Enforce Executory Contract. Currently pending before the Court are three motions: (1) Appellee General Development Corporation's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/00-12203.opn.html">TUCKER V. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS (8/13/2002, NO. 00-12203)<BR></A><BR> Even those whose direct appeals were completed before that decision was released. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/00-12203.opn.html">TUCKER V. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS (8/13/2002, NO. 00-12203)<BR></A><BR> Even those whose direct appeals were completed before that decision was released. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1118.html">THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>   </span>With him on the brief were <u>John F. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Andra Barmash Greene</u>. Communications Industry Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Matthew Schruers</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso bidi font s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8098.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We take jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2253 and hold that the Petitioner's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims are without merit and that his subsidiary claims alleging due process violations and ineffective assistance of (1) This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> trial counsel are procedurally barred. The district court's dismissal of his habeas action is therefore AFFIRMED. I. Background Petitioner Appellant Bruce Leslie ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/006065P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That abstention was not appropriate under The Honorable Jerry W. The order below will be reversed. The factual background of this case is set forth in detail in our prior opinion Williams v. Will be expanded upon below only to the extent necessary for the issues presently under consideration. The contractual monthly mortgage payments that came due postpetition were also to be paid through the Plan. The dismissal order directed the trustee to pay claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/989009r.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to death on the vote of a Delaware state jury in December 1982. It is not because there has been undue delay at any stage but because the case raises legitimate questions that go to the constitutionality of the original trial and sentencing. It was necessary to complete a series of proceedings in both state and federal court. Placed a bottle of beer on the counter and announced the store was being robbed. Who was then hopping up and down. As Riley and Baxter were proceeding to the door to leave. Williams were indicted on charges of felony murder. Baxter pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in exchange for his testimony against Riley. The murder and weapon charges against Williams were also dropped in exchange for his testimony against Riley. He was subsequently convicted of the robbery and conspiracy charges. Riley was represented at trial by appointed counsel. His pretrial motions for co counsel and funds for a private investigator were denied. The prosecutors in Riley's case were James Liguori and Mark McNulty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/983901P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That his sixth amendment right to an impartial jury and his fourteenth amendment right to due process were violated by a juror's failure to disclose the juror's mother's employment at the county jail where Mr. Fuller was held during the trial and by the same juror's failure to disclose his own previous employment with a county or state law enforcement agency. Fuller contended that his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and his fourteenth amendment right to due process were violated by his state trial lawyer's failure to locate. Fuller's sixth and fourteenth amendment claims in regard to ineffective assistance of counsel were never raised through a timely petition for postconviction review in the state courts. That default was excusable in the particular circumstances of Mr. The trial court warned the jurors that any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0257p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although we disagree with the district court's conclusion that Poindexter was deprived of his right to counsel during the guilt phase. I. Background The facts of this case are excerpted from State v. Was serving a sentence in the workhouse (Community Correctional Institution) for felonious assault on his former girlfriend and the mother of his two children. Appellant confided in a fellow inmate that Abernathy was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/062930P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Volvo did not request an award of costs while the case was on appeal. The district court held it was without authority to award the costs of supersedeas bond premiums in the absence of a specific directive from the Eighth Circuit. The jury verdict was affirmed in its entirety. After the amended judgment was entered. Concluding it had no authority to award appellate costs under Rule 39 because the Eighth Circuit was silent on the matter of costs. Volvo filed a timely appeal. 3 II The district court's interpretation of Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is a question of law we review de novo. Rule 39(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure sets forth four separate categories of cases in which costs will be awarded. The four categories are: 1) dismissed appeals. Rule 39 provides costs are taxed against the appellant unless the parties agree otherwise. The rule provides costs are taxed against the appellant. The rule provides costs are taxed against the appellee. The rule provides </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200012203.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even those whose direct appeals were completed before that decision was released. Melvee Tucker was convicted in 1978 for the 1974 murder of a convenience store clerk during a robbery. He is currently serving a life sentence for that crime. Tucker argued that the following six actions of the trial court were error: (1) failure to dismiss the indictment because it contained no allegation of venue. All six of those points of error were rejected by Florida's Third District Court of Appeal in a divided decision. Nothing in the record indicates that the briefing of that other issue was done at Tucker's initiative instead of at the direction of the Florida Supreme Court. After a number of other state court proceedings that are not relevant to the issues before us. Four of which involved the same claims of error that he had presented to the state intermediate appellate court but that were not decided by the Florida Supreme Court. The district court held that those four claims were procedurally barred from federal court review because Tucker had abandoned them on direct appeal by not raising them before the Florida Supreme Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/024020p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These seven appeals have been filed by counsel to various claimants in the Diet Drugs Product Liability Multidistrict Litigation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115854.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that both Rule 7 and its inherent power are legitimate sources of authority for including attorneys' fees within an appellate cost bond. That it was appropriate to rely on both of these bases in holding appellant jointly and severally liable for posting a $180. We conclude that although the district court correctly determined that there are cases in which anticipated attorneys' fees may be included in an appellate cost bond. It erred in holding that this is such a case. I. The factual and procedural history of this large class action is straightforward but complex. Pedraza is the representative of a class of borrowers who obtained mortgage insurance from defendants United Guaranty Corporation and United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3619.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for incorrectly advising him about the sentencing consequences of pleading guilty. Moore was 15 years old. He was charged as an adult with first degree murder for his involvement in a shooting. Attorney James Kuehl was appointed to represent Mr. Just before the case was scheduled to go to trial. Moore's plea was not knowingly or voluntarily made because. If he were convicted after a trial. About a week before No. 01 3619 3 trial was to begin. Moore would lose at trial and that a new good time statute was going into effect soon that would require him to serve 85% of his sentence. The court would impose a sentence within the range of 25 to 30 years of which he would have to serve 22 to 27 years. He would only have to serve 10 years of a twenty year sentence. Moore testified that he was scared at the time. He stated that he indeed was concerned about Mr. Moore's having to serve more time if he was convicted after the new good time statute became effective and that he had discussed those concerns with Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033392p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ESQUIRE McDermott Will & Emery 227 West Monroe Street. This case involves twelve1 consolidated appeals from the District Court's order approving Combustion Engineering's bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization under 11 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.2 We will vacate and remand. The state and federal judicial systems have struggled with an avalanche of asbestos lawsuits. The difficulties with asbestos litigation have been well documented by RAND and others.3 Efforts to resolve the asbestos problem through global settlement class actions under Fed. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(1)(B) have so far been unsuccessful. Mounting asbestos liabilities have pushed otherwise viable companies into bankruptcy. The centerpiece of the Plan is an injunction in favor of Combustion Engineering that channels all of its asbestos claims to a post confirmation trust (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6177.htm">00-6177 -- CARTER V. GIBSON -- 12/18/2001<BR></A><BR> Was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court of felony murder. Manowski was alone. The business' gates were padlocked. The lights in the guard shack were off. The guard shack door was open. The gate to the auto yard was partially open. Manowski was lying on the ground with blood visible. He was not bitter about the firing. There was no discussion. Summers and who was his best friend. Carter were present. Testified the characteristics of the borrowed bolt cutters were consistent with the marks left on the broken lock. Footprints near the Auction were consistent with boots owned by Mr. The characteristics of the entrance wound conclusively indicated that the murder weapon was in direct contact with the victim's head when the fatal shot was fired. <p> Mr. Carter testified that he was not involved in the murder or robbery. Summers was at the murder. Carter is entitled to habeas relief if the decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-7143.htm">99-7143 -- SMITH V. MASSEY -- 12/19/2000<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The following is a summary of the underlying facts. Allegedly had made threats to have him killed. <p> As the group drove away from the motel. Present at the house were Smith and his wife Robyn. Five of these gunshot wounds were fatal. The knife wound was also potentially fatal. <p> <u>Smith v. 483 U.S. 1033 (1987). <p> Smith and her son Greg were charged in the District Court of Sequoyah County. The cases against Smith and her son were severed for purposes of trial. The jury found the existence of two aggravating factors: (1) the murder was especially heinous. Smith was formally sentenced by the state district court on December 29. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. The denial of post conviction relief was affirmed by the OCCA. <u>Smith v. The magistrate court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Smith was advised by trial counsel of a potential conflict of interest arising out of counsel's representation of both Smith and her son and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/011272P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Such a waiver is subject to certain limitations. Andis entered into a plea agreement that contained a valid waiver of his appellate rights and the sentence imposed was not illegal. His appeal is dismissed. That we have often viewed these two rights as synonymous. Both the defendant and the Government hereby mutually agree to waive all rights to appeal whatever sentence is imposed. Reserving only the right to appeal from an upward or downward departure from the Guideline range that is established at sentencing. These issues are left for the District Court's determination. The defendant states that he is fully satisfied with the representation he has received from his counsel. That they have discussed the Government's case. He argues that the conditions of his supervised release are illegal because they are generic conditions imposed without regard to the specific characteristics of his crime as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). A defendant is allowed to waive appellate rights. Every circuit that has considered this issue has reached the conclusion that at least some forms of appeal waivers are permissible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/031086P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jeremaine Perry was convicted in state court of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-9381.man.html">LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)<BR></A><BR> Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany</EM></P> <P> Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/049005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sr. was found guilty by a Bucks County. He was sentenced to death for the murder of his wife. Subsequent to the District Court's granting the writ our decision in Banks was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Beard v. We hold that the defense was properly raised for the first time in the brief on appeal. Thus it is not waived. Because the District Court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's 2004 Beard decision when it granted the writ on the basis of Mills. We will not reverse. We will vacate the order granting the writ. The matter will be remanded. The District Court's determination that the guilt phase issues do not warrant habeas relief will be affirmed. Albrecht was arrested in January 1980 after the arson investigation was completed. The Commonwealth sought to prove that the fire was arson. That Albrecht was having an extramarital affair. Some of the abuse testimony was dramatic. She was kicked in the legs and she had bruises on her calf and he had banged her head against the refrigerator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8FEB0CC4B736A08988256EAC0059289D/$file/0316553.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an injunction. Whether an interlocutory order denying seizure is thus appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because the district court's denial of a motion for an ex parte seizure order is neither an automatically appealable literal refusal of an injunction nor a practical denial of ultimate injunctive relief. All proceedings so far have been ex parte and filed under seal. The defendant is designated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-3242.htm">02-3242 -- UPCHURCH V. BRUCE -- 06/18/2003<BR></A><BR> Jessica Green was preparing for bed when she heard a knock at the front door. Green informed Upchurch that her wallet was outside in her car. Green noticed that one of Upchurch's cohorts was already inside the car stealing the car stereo system. Green was able to do so and handed it to Upchurch.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0276p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner contends that he was denied effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in that his trial and appellate counsel failed to challenge the arresting officer's reliance upon a police flyer containing information that Petitioner was a drug courier. The state failed to offer any proof that the police officer who provided the information in the police flyer had reasonable suspicion to believe that Petitioner was involved in criminal activity. Including that the state trial court erred in denying Petitioner's suppression motion because Petitioner's stop was unconstitutional by virtue of its duration. In sum: (1) that the trial court erred because the state failed to establish the factual predicate for the dispatch that led to Petitioner's further detention and (2) that his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue this deficiency in the state's case in the posthearing briefs and on appeal. Contending that the Ohio Court of Appeals misconstrued or ignored Petitioner's claim that Petitioner's appellate counsel was ineffective. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5115.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wilson's primary claim is that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in connection with his pre trial certification for trial as an adult on murder charges arising out of a shooting that occurred when he was thirteen years old. The district court held that this claim was procedurally barred. Would have provided cause to excuse the procedural default but this appellate (1) Justin Jones replaced Ron Ward as Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections on October 27. Jones is therefore substituted for Mr. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Appellate counsel. <hr> ineffectiveness claim was denied on the merits. Is not and cannot alone be sufficient to establish ineffective assistance or to preclude enforcement of a procedural default. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/012951.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether we have jurisdiction to consider this case. We will therefore vacate the District Court's dismissal. Fiorelli was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment following his convictions for racketeering. Fiorelli's motion alleged that his counsel failed to disclose a plea agreement offered by the government that would have resulted in a 60 month term of imprisonment. Fiorelli alleged only that Carroll </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-9381.man.html">LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)<BR></A><BR> Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany</EM></P> <P> Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6116.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Goble is serving two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole after his conviction on two counts of murder. The district court denied the petition and later granted a certificate of appealability on one issue: whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in presenting Goble's Fourth Amendment challenge to the search warrant which led to the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. This court expanded the certificate of appealability to include the issue of whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6261.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Travis Bailey pled guilty to possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. R. 36.3. <hr> controlled substance and was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment. There was insufficient evidence supporting the enhancements to his sentence and his Sixth Amendment rights were violated pursuant to Blakely v. That Bailey's appeal is precluded by his waiver of appellate rights in the plea agreement. We conclude it is not precluded by his waiver. A single family house which Bailey was in the process of constructing (the unfinished house). Over twenty five firearms (some of which were loaded) and ammunition. Where the suspected methamphetamine lab was located. Which was tested and identified as methamphetamine. They found six firearms (two of which were loaded). ATF agents received information that explosions were occurring on or near Bailey's property. A criminal complaint was filed against Bailey (1) Although Bailey consented to the search of the entire property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-5239.htm">99-5239 -- HUFFMAN V. SAUL HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP -- 08/22/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023727p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The main issue presented in these appeals is Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Because we conclude that the District Court's referral was an improper delegation of its traditional adjudicatory function. Factual Background and Procedural History This is the second time this CERCLA contribution action has been before us. The chief tasks on remand were to determine which of Beazer's response costs were necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0106n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) that he was denied his right to appeal by the state appellate court despite following the dictates set forth under Ohio App. Appellant was found guilty of robbery. He was The Hon. Appellant was sentenced to serve five years for robbery. The sentence for abduction was to be served consecutive with the robbery sentence and the sentence for theft was to be served concurrently with the other counts. No direct appeal was filed in the case. Was written in response to Appellant's July 27. The appellate court also found that Appellant did not assert that he did not know or was not informed of his right to file an appeal. The court found that Appellant actually stated that he was informed by the trial court of his right to appeal. Section[s] 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution is denied when trial counsel fails to file a timely appeal. He raised the following issues: Ground one: Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel is in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0248p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On his claim that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated at his first degree murder trial when the prosecutor. (2) to the extent that the state courts on direct review would have found that petitioner procedurally defaulted his Confrontation Clause claim as a result of trial counsel's failure to object to the underlying violation at trial. The ineffective assistance of trial counsel would have excused any such default. (3) petitioner had not procedurally defaulted his Confrontation Clause claim before the state courts on collateral review because the state procedural ground upon which the state courts denied petitioner leave to appeal was inadequate to bar federal habeas review. That this violation was not harmless error. That the prior state court denial of petitioner's Confrontation Clause claim on the merits was an unreasonable application of the pertinent. Petitioner was arrested and charged with the first degree murder of Shawn Stalworth. Who had been shot to death earlier that day as he was leaving his house in Battle Creek. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B9AAB229FB425B588256E5A00707C59/$file/0035355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Because Wildman's habeas petition is without merit. Wildman was convicted in Oregon state court of one count of attempted murder. The convictions were supported by evidence of domestic violence against Wildman's former wife. Wildman committed arson by starting a fire which damaged the interior of the home in which Wildman and his wife were living. As she was trying to open her car door. Wildman was also engulfed in the resulting flames. Wildman told several different versions of how he and his wife were injured. All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. Wildman was tried on the felon inpossession charge. He testified that a gun held two to three feet off the floor and three feet away from the wall could not have followed the near horizontal path reflected in a photograph depicting the trajectory of the bullet hole. Held a gun to her head which was three feet above the floor and three to four feet away from the wall. Which is not at issue in Wildman's present habeas petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0036p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court further found that White was unable to show cause and prejudice for the default. A claim of ineffective assistance is raised by application to reopen the direct appeal. Because an application for reopening the direct appeal in Ohio is part of the direct appeal process. We conclude that the petitioner in this case is able to show cause for his procedural default. The issue of whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the alleged constitutional error was not addressed by the district court and is not adequately briefed before us. We remand to the district court to consider whether the petitioner has established that he was actually prejudiced by the alleged constitutional error and. If he is able to demonstrate that he was actually prejudiced by the alleged constitutional error. He is entitled to federal review of the merits of his constitutional claims. Because the issue of prejudice is not adequately briefed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044502p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PHA was obliged to construct a number of public housing units with accessibility features for the mobility impaired and to lease these units to the appropriate persons having the requisite disability. Appeals were filed after the entry of each order. The threshold question we must answer is whether entry of final judgment ­ the District Court's August 29. Concluding that the orders from which the instant appeals were taken are not final and appealable orders. Inc. is a federally funded social service and advocacy non profit corporation that is mandated. ADAPT of Philadelphia is an organization that advocates on behalf of individuals with disabilities. 51 for occupancy no later than December 31. These units were required </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-6236.htm">98-6236 -- PAXTON V. WARD -- 12/29/1999<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p> Petitioner Kenneth Wayne Paxton was convicted of first degree murder by a jury in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. Determined that the sentencing proceeding was constitutionally flawed by the exclusion of mitigating evidence. Paxton argues that he was improperly denied an instruction on a lesser included offense. That evidence of an invalid prior conviction was improperly admitted during the sentencing phase of his trial to support two of the three aggravating circumstances found by the jury.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/99-6419.htm">99-6419 -- BROWN V. GIBSON -- 04/12/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054997p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tomko was also ordered to undergo twenty2 eight days of in house treatment for alcohol abuse. This sentence is unreasonable in light of the circumstances of this case and the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It was therefore an abuse of discretion for the District Court to impose it and we will vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing. Inc. is classified as a flow through </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F5E0BA088E090B858825732200756C85/$file/0530401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We granted en banc review in this case to resolve a question to which we have given inconsistent answers: Do we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the defendant entered a guilty plea in which he waived his right to appeal? Our cases offer two different views of the question whether we have jurisdiction under these circumstances. We have held that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0405p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clark alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of (1) his trial counsel's failure to obtain a neuropsychologist and pharmacologist to testify at Clark's suppression hearing and trial about Clark's inability to waive his rights against self incrimination voluntarily and knowingly. Are excerpted from State v. Was shot and killed during an armed robbery of the establishment. The victim was working alone and appellant demanded money. The victim told appellant that there was no money. Handed appellant approximately $60 from the cash drawer and told him that was all of the money on the premises. The victim responded that there was no more money. Appellant was arrested after allegedly committing an assault and robbery at the Ohio Citizens Bank. Was arraigned in the Toledo Municipal Court for the assault and robbery at the bank. The public defender was aware that appellant was a suspect in the Manning murder. Appellant was taken to St. Appellant was released from the hospital and taken to the Toledo Police Detective Bureau where he was questioned by Detective James Lagger and Detective Sergeant Przeslawski. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6147.htm">98-6147 -- SCOGGIN V. KAISER -- 07/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Petitioner further claimed that his failure to raise the issue of the erroneous jury instructions at trial or on direct appeal was due to ineffective assistance of . The court held that Petitioner could have raised all of his claims on direct appeal. Thus was procedurally barred from raising them on post conviction review. Criminal appeals held that Petitioner's challenge to the jury instructions was procedurally barred. The magistrate judge concluded that any error was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/972050.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the District Court's dismissal of Lawrence Lines' petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. We conclude that returning to state court would be futile and that his claims are all procedurally defaulted. We will affirm. This is not to suggest that anyone other than Lines himself is responsible for much of the complexity here. It is his own conduct that has prevented him from getting the review he has been seeking in the state and federal courts. As will be seen from our discussion. His flight during the course of his jury trial tossed a procedural monkey wrench into subsequent proceedings in both state and federal court. 2 Lines was tried for murder in state court in 1986. While the jury was deliberating. Lines was apprehended on December 21. While those post verdict motions were pending. Arguing that Lines was no longer entitled to seek post verdict relief because he had absconded during his trial. Lines was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. Was the Defendant Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel when defense counsel allowed the admittance of hearsay statements without objection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064601p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC appeals from the decision of the District Court of the Virgin Islands denying HOVENSA's motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the relevant arbitration agreement is unconscionable under Virgin Islands law. Because the District Court's opinion relied on its view that it was not bound by contrary decisions of the Virgin Islands Superior Court. It is incumbent upon us to examine the restructured judicial system for the Virgin Islands following the 1984 Revised Organic Act and the 1990 amendment by the Virgin Islands legislature to 4 V.I. Disputes or controversies arising out of or relating to . . . (4) any claims for personal injury or property damage arising in any way from my presence at the HOVENSA refinery that are not covered by the [Collective Bargaining Agreement]. A copy of which is available at www.adr.org or from Wyatt. Is a contractor for HOVENSA. Edwards was injured in January 2005 due to what he alleged was HOVENSA's negligence. The parties are diverse. Edwards is a citizen of Massachusetts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI5NzNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2973_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> New York County unlawfully exercised a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror named Francis Gomez ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0154p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The public policy claim was sent to the jury. Defendants then renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law on the public policy claim and the District Court granted the renewed motion finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish at trial that he was an at will employee. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gary Kusens was employed by Defendant Pascal Company. When his position was eliminated. Plaintiff was 54 years old. His base salary increased and his commissions were determined as a fixed percentage of nationwide Pascal sales. Two of the people responsible for the elimination of Plaintiff's position were Defendant Benjamin Paschall. Pascal's Vice President of Sales and Marketing who was also Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Plaintiff was the oldest of the four Regional Sales Managers at Pascal. Who was terminated the same day as Plaintiff. Was the second oldest. The youngest two Sales Managers were retained. Plaintiff filed suit contending that he was fired because of his age and not because of Pascal's financial strategy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0047n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He also argues that he is entitled to the writ because of the insufficiency of the evidence presented at his guilty plea hearing. I. The procedural history in the state courts of Ohio is detailed in the district court's Opinion and Order of March 12. Will not be repeated here. Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal from his conviction. Petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in the state courts. The warden argued that Carpenter's claims were procedurally defaulted. P. 26(B) was not an adequate and independent state ground for default. Even if it were an adequate and independent ground for default. The court determined that Carpenter's insufficiency of the evidence claim was procedurally defaulted. It found that it first had to examine whether the ineffectiveness claim was preserved for federal review or was itself defaulted. In order to determine whether Carpenter's ineffectiveness claim was defaulted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6AC21177109B6D4488256AAA0057825D/$file/0035355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Because Wildman's habeas petition is without merit. Wildman was convicted in Oregon state court of one count of attempted murder. The convictions were supported by evidence of domestic violence against Wildman's former wife. Wildman committed arson by starting a fire which damaged the interior of the home in which Wildman and his wife were living. As she was trying to open her car door. Wildman was also engulfed in the resulting flames. Wildman told several different versions of how he and his wife were injured. All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. Wildman was tried on the felon inpossession charge. He testified that a gun held two to three feet off the floor and three feet away from the wall could not have followed the near horizontal path reflected in a photograph depicting the trajectory of the bullet hole. Held a gun to her head which was three feet above the floor and three to four feet away from the wall. Which is not at issue in Wildman's present habeas petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/001195P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David Reagan claims he was denied effective assistance of trial. I. David Reagan was convicted of first degree murder in the Greene County. Reagan was charged with first degree murder. Binkard was charged with first degree murder and permitting the abuse of a child. Because it was not tendered within 90 days of the filing of the notice of appeal as required by Arkansas law. His appeal was never heard. The only issue Lee raised in the appeal was whether there had been sufficient evidence to support the verdict. As these events were transpiring. Issued proposed findings and recommendations that Reagan's petition was procedurally defaulted. We conclude Reagan's federal habeas corpus petition is not procedurally barred. A district court is precluded from considering any issue that a state court has already resolved on an independent and adequate state law ground. This rule is nearly absolute. This claim was procedurally defaulted in the Arkansas courts when he appealed the denial of Rule 36.4 relief. His claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is barred from federal habeas review unless Reagan can show either cause and prejudice excusing the default or actual innocence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033772np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Enez Balthazar brought a medical malpractice suit in New Jersey state court that was dismissed with prejudice when her attorney failed to file an affidavit of merit as required by state law. We will affirm. Which has never been disputed and is required by New Jersey law. Div. 2003).1 While the state appellate decision was pending. Balthazar by increasing the cost Balthazar also filed a Petition for Certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court that was denied on June 5. Central to our analysis in this case is the question of what the state appellate court adjudicated as to Ms. Balthazar argues that her complaint should have been preserved because of the allegedly fraudulent maintenance of relevant records . . . . Larry Kaufman was named in the state court action but not in the federal court action. 4 3 ... . . . Counsel argued orally that: `The pivotal issue is whether appellant must rely on the fraudulent medical record that has been provided by respondents . . . . Appellant can prove the record is fraudulent and unreliable .... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F1F6D0D0CE1C85C88256CDB000B66C6/$file/0156927.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. He is currently serving a sentence of nineteen years to life. The prosecutor's use of a peremptory strike to remove one of two African Americans in the jury pool during the selection of alternate jurors is at issue in 1 2 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Two African Americans were in the jury pool. One was impaneled on the jury. D.F. stated that she was married. That her husband was an engineer. I have a niece that's a nurse officer and a nephew that's a jailer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/996054.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These are consolidated appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a two tiered legal malpractice action governed by New Jersey law. The seeds of this case were sown in the early 1980s when Plaintiff Dixon Ticonderoga Company (Dixon) sold a piece of industrial property to a company named the Dixon Venture (Venture). Defendant William O'Connor who was affiliated with Defendant Schumann Hanlon & Panepinto (the Schumann firm) represented Dixon in connection with the sale. V enture sued Dixon to recover clean up costs that it was forced to incur in connection with the sale. Dixon claims that this judgment was the dir ect result of O'Connor's negligence. Who during all relevant times was affiliated with Defendant Franzblau Dratch. O'Connor and the Schumann firm moved to have the claims against them dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as time barred. It was granted by the District Court. As we will explain. We conclude that the first element was satisfied in either late 1984 or early 1985. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0196p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With this case we decide whether Petitioner Appellant Frank Howard ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-5122.htm">01-5122 -- DUBUC V. JOHNSON -- 01/02/2003<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as directed will result in the dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute. <u>See</u> <u>Young v. The opinions of the panel in support of and in opposition to this Order are attached. <p> <strong>McKAY</strong>. Alleged defects occurring during trial proceedings. <p> Plaintiff is a prisoner bringing a civil appeal after having at least three prior actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous. 1915(g) applies to prisoners who have filed at least three prior frivolous actions or appeals. Brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous. Unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. <p> <u>Id.</u> An action or appeal that has been dismissed as frivolous. Or for failure to state a claim is commonly referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-5254.htm">96-5254 -- NGUYEN V. REYNOLDS -- 11/07/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/99-11034.opn.html">WOLF PRADO-STEIMAN V. JEB BUSH (8/11/2000, NO. 99-11034)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/985342.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Only one of those two exhausted claims is befor e us now.1 In the one claim that we consider. Buhl ar gues that he was denied his constitutional right to conduct his own defense during his criminal trial in state court. W e hold that the trial court's rejection of Buhl's clear and unequivocal assertion of his right to proceed pr o se was improper. We will vacate the district court's ruling and remand for further procedures consistent with this opinion. Buhl's terrorized victim was only able to 1. Buhl is currently an inmate at the U.S. Serving a separate sentence of life imprisonment that is unrelated to. The instant appeal only relates to the aggregate sentence of life imprisonment plus 30 years incarceration that was imposed by the State of New Jersey. 2 escape when Pennsylvania police stopped her car to investigate its temporary license plate. She was then able to run to the patrol car and tell the officers that she had been kidnaped. He was captured appr oximately one month later. He was successfully prosecuted in federal court as well as the state courts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania for the various state and federal crimes he had committed in each jurisdiction during his rampage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants here argued that such consent was unnecessary due to the fact that the nonconsenting defendants are nominal parties. The district court concluded that the lone holdouts were not nominal parties and that their consent was necessary to effectuate removal. The threshold issue presented here is whether we have jurisdiction to review that decision. Two of the named defendants are Dr. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the Dube Defendants were under contract with the county to provide medical services to inmates such as Hernandez. Stated that the Dube Defendants did not consent to removal but that their consent was not required because they were nominal parties as a result of the September 19 agreement. 3 Plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand the case to state court. The district court concluded that the Dube Defendants were not nominal parties and that the case should therefore be remanded to state court due to the lack of unanimous consent to removal. We must first decide whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-11034.opn.html">PRADO-STEIMAN V. JEB BUSH (8/11/2000, NO. 99-11034)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/96-5039.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. COLLINS<BR></A><BR> Defendant James Collins pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly and intentionally distributing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) concluded that Collins's base offense level was 20. An adjusted offense level of 17 and a criminal history category of IV would have resulted in a range of 37 46 months. He was over 18. The instant offense was a controlled substance offense. Collins was arrested in Okmulgee County. He was arrested in Phoenix. Collins's adjusted offense level was 29 and his criminal history category was VI. Collins filed a motion for a downward departure on the basis that his career offender status </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/99-11034.opn.html">WOLF PRADO-STEIMAN V. JEB BUSH (8/11/2000, NO. 99-11034)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1555p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question of the appropriate jurisdictional vehicle is precedentially important. For our ability to review such disputes is frequently called into question. We address the question whether the challenged order is appealable. We have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Because we have appellate jurisdiction. The merits issues are quite straightforward. We have examined each of the documents in question in camera. We conclude that the minutes of the meeting reflect that the recorded communications were for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and hence are protected by the attorney client privilege. We determine that they were produced by an agent of an attorney in preparation for litigation and hence are protected by the work product doctrine. The other requirements for work product doctrine are not at issue. We will. Who was killed when the Bronco II he was driving rolled over. Ford sought from the district court a protective order that would have preserved the confidentiality of those documents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1421p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment because his appellate counsel failed to press his Equal Protection claim on direct appeal. We will reverse the judgment granting relief. Sistrunk was convicted for participating in the robbery and arson of a furniture store. During which one employee was murdered and others assaulted. He was awarded a new trial due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He was tried again on the same charges. Was required to show a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in jury selection across multiple prosecutions. Evidence that was not tendered by Sistrunk during his second trial. Who is black. He was again convicted. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. While his petition for review was pending. Holding that the Equal Protection Clause is violated whenever a state prosecutor exercises a peremptory challenge to exclude a venireperson from the jury because of his or her race. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3055.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reynold Moore was convicted in Wisconsin state court of first degree intentional homicide as a party to a crime. Which was denied. The district court determined that the five claims not raised in the petition to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin were procedurally defaulted. Was planning to steal an expensive piece of electrical cord from the plant. Who was at coop 9 to take readings from a machine. Moore No. 02 3055 3 went and listened to the tape and was told that the voice was that of Monfils. Monfils left his post at coop 7 and was confronted around 7:35 a.m. by a group of workers near a water fountain between coops 7 and 9. Monfils was attacked and seriously injured. That Dale 1 Basten and Michael Johnson were carrying something. Johnson was walking backwards. The two men were five to six feet apart. Kutska told Piaskowski to alert a supervisor that Monfils was missing. Monfils' partially decomposed body was found at the bottom of the pulp vat. Was tied around his neck. Kutska had drawn a diagram of where each defendant stood and had told Kellner that someone slapped Monfils and that Hirn 1 Basten and Johnson were Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043531np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When asked if he understood that he was waiving his right to appeal. He was treating the guidelines as though they were advisory and that he was free to sentence Clagon up to the statutory maximum of ten years. Would have allowed him to file an appeal. Asserting that he was unable to identify any nonfrivolous basis for appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6384.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. (1) This matter is submitted on the briefs by this court's own motion. Gordon responds that her challenge to the amount of restitution is not covered by her waiver of appellate rights and that. If it is. That is Mastercard XXXX XXXX XXXX 9512. The loss associated with this count was $7. Gordon fraudulently used credit cards belonging to other persons.(2) The total loss resulting from the count of conviction and the other incidents was $68. Gordon was hired to be a caretaker for two elderly women who subsequently died. The Scope of the Waiver of Appellate Rights Waivers of appellate rights are generally enforceable. We must determine whether such review is precluded by the waiver. If the appeal is within the scope of the waiver. Plea agreements are governed by contract principles. One key principle is the doctrine of contra proferentem. That ambiguities in agreements are to be construed against the drafter. Gordon's plea agreement contains the following waiver of appellate rights: Defendant understands that a sentencing guideline range for her case will be determined by the Court under the guidelines issued by the U.S. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-2394.htm">97-2394 -- UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION LOCAL 1745 V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE -- 05/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6061.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0869p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Marcuses argue that the stay of their federal court case is inappropriate because the state criminal action and the federal civil rights action are not parallel proceedings under Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Was part of an area called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-11034.opn.html">PRADO-STEIMAN V. JEB BUSH (8/11/2000, NO. 99-11034)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA1NDEtY3YgQW1lbmRlZC5wZGY=/05-0541-cv%20Amended.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Town of Wallkill appeal from the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on appellee Clubside. Holding that Clubside did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the extension of the sewer district. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1145p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bender's and Brown's liability for these costs was joint and several. The district court stated that it was imposing these sanctions under Rule 11. Martin's case against Brown was stayed under the automatic stay of Bankruptcy Code § 362. Which is still pending. We hold that we have appellate jurisdiction over Bender's appeal despite the fact that the district court dismissed the underlying action </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0716p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Juniel Charleswell was convicted on various criminal charges in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands. The Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin Islands reversed and held that he was entitled to a new trial. Were not addressed by that court. Charleswell was charged by information with (count I) assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon. Charleswell was tried on these charges before a jury in the Territorial Court. That the police station at Four Winds Plaza was under attack. Who was on duty at the time. The bullet was fired into the ceiling. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE2NzUtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1675-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the District Court should have the opportunity to consider whether to resentence. Background Crosby was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He entered a plea of There was no plea guilty to the single count of the indictment. agreement. Crosby was subdued and arrested. The Government based its contention that Crosby was a felon on his two Florida state court convictions. The Defendant disputed that either of the Florida convictions was a felony. He did not dispute that he was subsequently sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment after the revocation of his Community Control and probation. That Crosby's offenses were felonies under Florida law. Finding the Defendant's testimony at the pretrial hearing to have been materially false. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5032.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Robinson expressly waived his right to (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> appeal the district court's sentence if the sentence was within the guideline range applicable to the statute of conviction as determined by the district court. Robinson's shared folder were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcwMTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7012_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant seeks to have the jury's verdict set aside and judgment entered in his favor. The plaintiff was awarded a substantial verdict based on one of Hopkins' libelous statements. On the grounds that the jury did not find that Hopkins' other three statements were libelous. Was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-6004.htm">98-6004 -- MOORE V. GIBSON -- 09/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and kidnaping for the abduction and murder of twelve year old Jenipher Gilbert. He is entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing on his allegations that police planted evidence against him. Atrocious or cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></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-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE0MDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1407_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Valentin similarly challenges his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds and also claims that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise a preponderance challenge to his Guidelines calculation. Whose conviction was based on a jury verdict. Whose conviction was based on a guilty plea. We agree with Garcia that the agent's opinion testimony at trial as to Garcia's culpable role in the charged crimes was not properly received. Although the government argues that this testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 as a lay opinion summary of anticipated evidence. We conclude that the necessary predicates of that rule were not satisfied in this case. Because this evidentiary error was harmless. We affirm so much of Garcia's judgment of conviction as reflects the jury verdict 1 2 3 Although the enhanced sentence provision of § 841(b)(1)(A) is triggered by trafficking in amounts of five kilograms or more of cocaine. We conclude that the district court's Guidelines calculations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/995551.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that the court should have granted the writ because trial counsel had a conflict of inter est and was otherwise ineffective. Clarence Moody ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-4217.opa.html">CHATELOIN V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chateloin v. The jury submitted the following note to the trial court: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-9095.man.html">SNAPPER, INC. V. REDAN (4/5/1999, NO. 97-9095)<BR></A><BR> A district court's remand order is reviewable when the court issued the order to enforce a contractual forum selection clause. Because we conclude that appellate review is available in this context. This new arrangement also seems to have been mutually satisfactory. The six individuals thus made liable are Steven I. Snapper demanded that KPM purchase more inventory than KPM could sell to its dealers so that Snapper would not have to close a manufacturing plant. Seeking to have the case transferred to New Jersey to be consolidated with the New Jersey action. Concluding that removal premised on diversity jurisdiction was a right based on domicile. We hold today that the district court's interpretation of the forum selection clause is subject to appellate review and affirm the order on the merits.</P> <P><CENTER>II. REVIEWABILITY</CENTER> </P> <P> There are two potential obstacles to appellate review in this case. Even if the final judgment rule is satisfied. Because we conclude that the district court's order is final. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1345p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His request was reduced by the district court by more than eighty percent. Five of the nine counts were dismissed on summary judgment in June 1993. Judgment was entered for Mr. Washington was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-5114.htm">98-5114 -- HAMPTON V. SCOTT -- 06/29/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner. Upon determining the claims were procedurally barred. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0139p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The respondent State of Ohio argues that Turner's petition was properly dismissed because the Ohio Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed his conviction while The Honorable Arthur J. Bagley Page 2 his appeal from the district court's dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus was pending in this Court. The issue on appeal is whether the district court properly dismissed Turner's habeas corpus petition for lack of exhaustion. We conclude that dismissal was not proper. Turner was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery. Turner filed a motion to compel his attorney to produce certain documents and complained to the court of appeals that his attorney was not representing him. Turner wrote a letter to attorney #1 in which he stated that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1616p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954217.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury submitted the following note to the trial court: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/041754P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hoffman was one of approximately 950. Operated a risk retention group insuring group members who were obligated to contract holders that had purchased VSCs from those group members. National Warranty's primary place of business was Lincoln. Nebraska and all of its business and assets were located within the United States. We agree with the bankruptcy appellate panel there are three main issues: whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the matter. Whether injunctive relief was appropriate. Whether the injunction was too broad. There is also a secondary issue involving the bankruptcy court's denial of discovery. The first question before us is whether the bankruptcy appellate panel erred in upholding the bankruptcy court's decision to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the present matter. Ancillary jurisdiction is triggered by a foreign representative filing a petition showing the commencement of a foreign proceeding. Hoffman challenges the bankruptcy court's finding the Cayman Islands liquidation was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2996_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In the belief that his trial and appellate lawyers were ineffective in several ways. On the ground that it was In accordance with FED. We have substituted the current warden of Stateville Correctional Center. That his federal habeas corpus petition was filed in time and that Smith is entitled to pursue it in the district court. Smith was represented by Attorney Lawrence Vance. Vance began by telling the judge that the evidence would show that Smith was home on the evening in question with his female partner. This was the only defense Vance ever mentioned. Even though she was in the courtroom and ready to testify that Smith had been with her at all relevant times. It absolutely was not Jesse Smith. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0047n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court accepted the magistrate judge's conclusions that Williams's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is procedurally defaulted and that the jury instructions at his trial did not violate due process. I. The facts of the underlying conviction that led to this appeal were set forth by the state appellate court. * The Honorable Bernice Bouie Donald. Appellant [Williams] gathered together a group of individuals amongst which were Tracy Fears. It is disputed as to whether Gerald Hardaway was also a member of the group. The group was formed in order to exact revenge upon Chris Chapman who was believed to have killed appellant's cousin on September 16. In that Chapman was known to frequent his girlfriend's residence. Since neither Chapman nor his girlfriend were injured or killed in that attack. It was decided that the group would firebomb the residence where Chapman and his girlfriend were staying in an attempt to force the individuals from the house. Firebombs were prepared and guns were gathered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2882.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 83 year old Anna Gilvis was savagely beaten and stabbed to death in her home. 1 who was 10 years old at the time of the murder. Was charged with the crime and adjudged a delinquent after a 2 day trial in the Cook 1 This is not the petitioner's real name. The first being whether this appeal is moot because Morgan. Who is now 20 years old. Both insist that the case is not moot a federal court at any stage of the proceedings must. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4217.opa.html">CHATELOIN V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chateloin v. The jury submitted the following note to the trial court: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-3421.opa.html">GRUBBS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Grubbs v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Grubbs was convicted in a Florida state court of committing sexual battery and lewd and lascivious acts on a child. He was sentenced to a twenty five year minimum mandatory term and a concurrent fifteen year term.<p> The offenses occurred at Grubbs's home where the victim. Was visiting her friend Sunny Russ. Daggett further testified that the offenses occurred on a conventional single bed with a mattress.<p> Counsel was appointed to aid Grubbs in appeal of his convictions. The appointed counsel moved Florida's Second District Court of Appeal for permission to withdraw on the ground that no reversible errors were committed during the trial. Was denied.<p> Grubbs next filed in the trial court a pro se motion for post conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Grubbs filed the habeas petition involved in this appeal.<p> The petition claims that (1) Grubbs's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce into evidence an installment sales agreement for the purchase of a waterbed to support Grubbs's claim that he owned the waterbed on the date when the offenses were alleged to have occurred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1388_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On direct appeal the Appellate Court of Illinois overturned his convictions after concluding that Watson was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. He was tried again. This time the 1 While his federal petition was pending in the district court. Watson was transferred to Menard Correctional Center. We have substituted Donald Hulick. That the state court's resolution of his Sixth Amendment claim was reasonable in light of the evidence presented in that proceeding. Watson's Arrest and Confessions The following facts are not in dispute. Were shot as they slept in McDaniel's apartment. That Watson was the shooter. Watson was given Miranda warnings when he was arrested. Other officers had obtained a search warrant for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1071.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the Illinois Wage Act claim was not preempted by the LMRA. I. Background Plaintiffs appellants were employees of Outboard Marine Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064477np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm Suarez's aggravated rape conviction. We will. A.B. was unfamiliar with the game. A.B. testified that the object was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1625.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 50. Was on brief for Ankers White. Was on brief for appellants defendants. appellants defendants. Procter & Hoar were on brief for plaintiff appellee. Hoar were on brief for plaintiff appellee. 3 3 CYR. The inmate was given no hearing prior to the AFP placement. AFP status was reviewed every five days by the prison official who recommended the particular placement. Domegan sought to establish that the AFP was viola tive of the Eighth Amendment. (iii) turned off his water supply. 3The ten defendants named in the final amended complaint were Joseph J. Three other defendants were named in earlier complaints but were 5 5 Domegan was granted summary judgment on the procedural due process claim. Judgment was entered in the amount of $1.00 against Ponte. Although the district court determined that Domegan was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0420p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of first degree murder in violation of Mich. Burton was sentenced to life imprisonment for his first degree murder conviction and two years' imprisonment for the firearm charge. Testified that Burton retrieved a firearm from the residence and said he was going to kill McClayton. Several people were standing in the parking lot near a food truck selling chicken. Which was hot and smelled of smoke. Were watching television when a news broadcaster announced that Burton was the shooter in the McClayton incident. Burton said he was returning to Detroit. Burton was subsequently arrested in Detroit in December 1994. Was assigned to represent Burton. The motion was not heard until February 22. Which was only five days before Burton's scheduled trial date and was the last day when pre trial motions would be heard. Burton was not in attendance at the motion hearing. The case was reassigned to Judge William Collette. That Warshaw was no longer available because Burton lacked the funds to retain Warshaw and because a disagreement with Warshaw had since developed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953421.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Grubbs was convicted in a Florida state court of committing sexual battery and lewd and lascivious acts on a child. He was sentenced to a twenty five year minimum mandatory term and a concurrent fifteen year term. Was visiting her friend Sunny Russ. Sitting by designation. * Counsel was appointed to aid Grubbs in appeal of his convictions. The appointed counsel moved Florida's Second District Court of Appeal for permission to withdraw on the ground that no reversible errors were committed during the trial. Was denied. The petition claims that (1) Grubbs's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce into evidence an installment sales agreement for the purchase of a waterbed to support Grubbs's claim that he owned the waterbed on the date when the offenses were alleged to have occurred. (2) Grubbs's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to inadmissible hearsay testimony and in eliciting hearsay and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/981520P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tribe is federally registered and resides on a reservation in Idaho. Begin gambling once the account is funded. The Tribe offers the lottery to residents of thirty six States who have Internet access. Counsel for UniStar argued the US Lottery is lawful nationwide but appellees made the business decision to lower legal costs during start up by not offering it in States with strong policies against gambling. Two States whose Attorneys General have commenced litigation. Seeking to enjoin operation of the lottery because Internet gambling is illegal in Missouri and therefore the Tribe is violating state law by offering unlawful services and falsely advertising that the lottery is legal in Missouri. Arguing the US Lottery is not gambling on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2OThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7698_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cross appeals by certain plaintiffs from so much of the district court's order as * The present caption in these consolidated appeals lists as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0186p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Appellee Chad Ruimveld was charged with poisoning a prison guard while he was an inmate at a Michigan prison. Ruimveld was shackled in view of the jury. The Michigan state courts found that this shackling was improper. That it was harmless error. On the ground that the shackling was highly prejudicial to his trial. Because the presumption of innocence is a central tenet of the American justice system. It was found that a cleaning agent used in the prison had been added to Snyder's coffee. Two inmates were out of their cells performing cleaning duties with the cleaning agent at issue: Billy Sirrene and Petitioner Appellee Chad Ruimveld. Ruimveld was charged with poisoning. Ruimveld's trial was held in a special courtroom inside the prison that was regularly used to avoid transporting prisoners to an outside court. The evidence against Ruimveld was entirely circumstantial. Neither could be certain as to whether this was before or after Snyder poured her coffee. Ruimveld was brought into the courtroom in leg shackles. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2437.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Mann & Mitchell was on brief. Forrester and Sidley & Austin were on brief. This case presents a question of first impression in this circuit: Are a trial court's published findings of attorney misconduct. Notwithstanding that the monetary sanctions imposed by the court for that conduct have been nullified? Our sister circuits are divided on this important question. Are not appealable. The settlement proposal was coincident with the resolution of Tax Court proceedings involving the Arbitrage Management Partnerships (the partnerships). Because the parties were trying to settle the adversary action. ANALYSIS The threshold question in this matter is whether the bankruptcy judge's published findings of fact. Are appealable. There are no longer any monetary sanctions extant in this case. Both because they received insufficient process and because their conduct was not sanctionable. Having satisfied herself that they were supported by the record. Imposing sanctions against counsel is a serious matter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BCF336EBF7A5753488256D5100821E1A/$file/0055585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At the heart of this case is a disappointed litigant's attempt to obtain in federal court the very relief denied to him in state court. Is the functional equivalent of an appeal of the state court decision. A result that is inconsistent with the Rooker Feldman doctrine. A federal district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court. The case was transferred to then Superior Court Judge William Rylaarsdam. Bianchi's appeal was assigned to a panel that included nowJustice Rylaarsdam. At the time Bianchi's case was assigned to be heard before the appellate panel. Once the motion is made. The judge is automatically disqualified. No assessment of prejudice is undertaken. 1 BIANCHI v. Claiming that Justice Rylaarsdam's presence on the panel violated his federal and state constitutional right to due process and was contrary to California procedural rules. Bianchi sought to have the Court of Appeal vacate its opinion and reassign his appeal to a different panel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-9095.man.html">SNAPPER, INC. V. REDAN (4/5/1999, NO. 97-9095)<BR></A><BR> A district court's remand order is reviewable when the court issued the order to enforce a contractual forum selection clause. Because we conclude that appellate review is available in this context. This new arrangement also seems to have been mutually satisfactory. The six individuals thus made liable are Steven I. Snapper demanded that KPM purchase more inventory than KPM could sell to its dealers so that Snapper would not have to close a manufacturing plant. Seeking to have the case transferred to New Jersey to be consolidated with the New Jersey action. Concluding that removal premised on diversity jurisdiction was a right based on domicile. We hold today that the district court's interpretation of the forum selection clause is subject to appellate review and affirm the order on the merits.</P> <P><CENTER>II. REVIEWABILITY</CENTER> </P> <P> There are two potential obstacles to appellate review in this case. Even if the final judgment rule is satisfied. Because we conclude that the district court's order is final. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3152.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This matter is before the court on the appellant's petition for panel rehearing. We also have a response from the government. Panel members Judge Holloway and Judge O'Brien have voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing for the limited purpose of correcting errors in the previously filed opinion. The panel petition is otherwise denied. It is hereby ordered that the decision filed herein on June 4. Is withdrawn and the attached opinion is ordered filed in its place. Judge McConnell's original concurring opinion is re filed with the new opinion. <hr> The petition. Was circulated to all of the members of the court who are in regular active service. The request for rehearing en banc is denied. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. 3742(a). Pruitt's Criminal History and the Instant Offense Pruitt is a 42 year old woman with three prior convictions for selling illegal drugs and a criminal history spanning two decades. Pruitt was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess or sell cocaine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1869p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chambers argues that mandamus is necessary because the district court ignored that mandate. Will therefore grant a writ of mandamus and remand this matter once again for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. When this matter was initially before us we observed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-1507.htm">00-1507 -- KENNEDY V. LUBAR -- 12/17/2001<BR></A><BR> Kennedy was employed as a part time pharmacist in Store 100 of the King Soopers chain of grocery stores. Lubar was her pharmacy manager. Malicious and willful misconduct which allegedly caused her termination from Store 100 and her inability to obtain subsequent employment at other King Soopers stores. <p> Lubar removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado based on her assertion that Kennedy's state law claims were pre empted by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/01-6405.htm">01-6405 -- FLEEKS V. POPPELL -- 04/22/2004<BR></A><BR> Fleeks was convicted in Oklahoma state court on one count of burglary and one count of robbery. Petitioner sought and was denied habeas relief in the Western District of Oklahoma. We conclude that Petitioner's claim is procedurally barred and that. Petitioner was charged by information in Garfield County District Court with one count of burglary in the first degree and one count of robbery by force after former conviction of two or more felonies. A preliminary hearing was held in September 1996. Petitioner's trial was held on May . With the sentences to be served consecutively. <p> The evidence at trial was as follows. They were entered into evidence. The second ring was a gold nugget with seven small diamonds. Helms was unable to testify to the identity of her assailant. <p> Only the testimony of two witnesses Cheavel Cortez Lloyd and Albert Lee Brown. Jr. linked Petitioner to the stolen rings.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2045.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is reviewed only for plain error. Hold that the fourth prong of plain error review is not satisfied. Gonzalez Huerta was convicted of committing burglary in California. He was deported to Mexico in 2000. Gonzalez Huerta was arrested in New Mexico for possession of a <hr> controlled substance. Gonzalez Huerta was being held in a New Mexico jail. This offense is punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years. While this case was pending on appeal. That is to say. Gonzalez Huerta argues for the first time that Booker is grounds for remanding his case for resentencing. We note that this argument was not raised below. Ct. at 756 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-3421.opa.html">GRUBBS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Grubbs v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Grubbs was convicted in a Florida state court of committing sexual battery and lewd and lascivious acts on a child. He was sentenced to a twenty five year minimum mandatory term and a concurrent fifteen year term.<p> The offenses occurred at Grubbs's home where the victim. Was visiting her friend Sunny Russ. Daggett further testified that the offenses occurred on a conventional single bed with a mattress.<p> Counsel was appointed to aid Grubbs in appeal of his convictions. The appointed counsel moved Florida's Second District Court of Appeal for permission to withdraw on the ground that no reversible errors were committed during the trial. Was denied.<p> Grubbs next filed in the trial court a pro se motion for post conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Grubbs filed the habeas petition involved in this appeal.<p> The petition claims that (1) Grubbs's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce into evidence an installment sales agreement for the purchase of a waterbed to support Grubbs's claim that he owned the waterbed on the date when the offenses were alleged to have occurred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI5MDUgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-2905%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) affirms the denial of the petition on the ground that the state court's affirmance of petitioner's conviction was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. The New York Supreme Court excluded Wade's alibi defense on the ground that his alibi notice was untimely under New York's Criminal Procedure Law Section 250.20. Upholding the constitutionality of the exclusion of the alibi was not an unreasonable interpretation of Supreme Court authority. The Trial Evidence Establishing Wade's Guilt The evidence at Wade's trial established the following: Lawrence Munson was shot and killed in the early morning of October 24. She was trying to talk to me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/036064P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Case was attempting to obtain a declaratory judgment that none of the debtors were owners of the real estate and improvements used by the debtors in the operation of their business. Because record title to the real estate was in one or more of the debtors. The default judgment was set aside. The debtors were ordered to post a bond in the amount of $1. The state court case was scheduled for trial to begin within two weeks of the bankruptcy petition date. Case explained the history of the state court litigation and explained that the real property at issue in the Pennington County lawsuit was the only major asset left in any of the debtors' estates. The hearing on the motion for relief from the automatic stay was held on September 3. Case took the position that the appropriate forum for litigating the ownership of the real estate in question was in the state court where the matter had been pending for some time and was ready for trial. Case emphasized in response to arguments by counsel for the debtors and counsel for another judgment creditor that The very purpose of our trial is to determine that Magnum Resources. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-3150.htm">96-3150 -- LAW V. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION -- 01/23/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUzMTEtcHIgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-5311-pr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was convicted of several crimes. The ruling was not supported by the record. Messiah also maintains that the trial court's rulings with respect to two other Batson challenges he asserted were not supported by the record. Insurance agent Dennis Grasso was shot and killed in his Dobbs Ferry. Former professional boxer Kassan Supreme Messiah was indicted on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of robbery in the first degree. Messiah was tried by a jury in New York Supreme Court. Messiah subsequently was sentenced principally to an indeterminate term of thirty seven and a half years to life imprisonment. Which he is currently serving. This appeal concerns Messiah's claims that certain peremptory strikes the prosecutor exercised against prospective jurors during voir dire were racially motivated. Eight and ten. 3 THE COURT: Is that it? I do have a motion with regard to number two [Woodbury]. .... ASLAKSEN: I want to find out what the nonracial motivation is for the exercise of the peremptory challenge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4736_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Clyde Williams was convicted in the state courts of Wisconsin of three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child. There was an inadequate evidentiary basis. She was with him on a day when he was purchasing a car from her mother's boyfriend. White was caring for Tyfonia and her siblings. The assault apparently occurred in an elevator when Tyfonia was alone with Mr. Williams was convicted on counts arising out of both the 1990 and the 1996 incidents. Williams had penetrated her with his finger while they were in an elevator. Defense counsel asked Angie whether she was aware that her own boyfriend. With whom Tyfonia was sometimes left alone. Williams' attorney stated that he did not believe that he was bound by the court's earlier directive that a hearing would be necessary to resolve questions of admissibility relating to the sexual 4 No. 05 4736 history of any witness because the question did not involve Tyfonia's sexual experiences. The question was improper and highly prejudicial in light of the court's earlier ruling. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051012p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY PGI is the employer sponsor and named fiduciary of the Pressman Gutman Co. Throughout this opinion we will refer to the petition as seeking only a writ of mandamus as all the relief PGI seeks is available through mandamus. Even though the facts relating to defendants' liability are in sharp dispute. The pertinent facts material to our disposition of these matters are undisputed. We note that each party in these contentious proceedings accuses its opponent of improperly citing material outside the record in contravention of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2326.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us on a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner Appellant Johnnie Brown ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/953932P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reese was convicted of two counts of first degree murder. The details of the crime were set forth by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Are summarized *The HONORABLE DAVID S. Four bodies were discovered at the Marshall Junction Wildlife Reserve shooting range. Reese The officers asked the officers whether he should retain an attorney. could be furnished if he wanted one. he was read his Miranda rights. in the crime. robbery. silent. replied that they could not advise him on the matter but that an attorney Reese replied. Reese talked with the officers for approximately three hours and denied participation Later that evening he was arraigned on a complaint charging him with multiple counts of first degree murder. He was advised of his right to retain an attorney. Right to be A preliminary hearing was set for September 18. assigned an attorney if he could not afford one. An officer then advised Reese that he needed to have an attorney for the preliminary hearing and that that policy required him to fill out a form to determine whether he was financially eligible for the appointment of the public defender. hour. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196a.htm">98-6196A -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999<BR></A><BR> His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3509DE290E4FA20A88257338004D7EFB/$file/0635635o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That his claims are now procedurally defaulted. Those claims are now exhausted and warrant federal habeas review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/04-3076a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the joint brief for the appellants. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Was on brief. We will vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing because we cannot say that the district court's Booker error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We will address both. 1 4 with intent to distribute. Henry and Harrison were retried on the drug conspiracy count. The district court utilized a formula derived from Detective Thomas's expert testimony to calculate the amount of heroin for which Henry and Harrison were responsible. Henry's and Harrison's Guidelines range was 360 months to life imprisonment and the district court again sentenced them to life imprisonment. It is well settled that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/00-6292.htm">00-6292 -- DUCKETT V. MULLIN -- 09/04/2002<BR></A><BR> We conclude that Duckett is not entitled to habeas relief on any of these claims. John Howard was found dead in his apartment in Oklahoma City. His hands and feet were bound with a wire hanger. There were blood stains and spatters throughout the apartment. Howard's keys and car were missing. Howard picked up Duckett an escapee from prison who had been convicted of robbery by force while Duckett was hitchhiking on an interstate in Oklahoma City. Duckett was arrested in Clear Creek. Howard was on his feet and breathing. Noted that <p> [the victim's] ankle was broken and he had been struck at <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/95-3255.opn.html">ARMSTRONG V. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP. (4/16/1998, NO. 95-3255)<BR></A><BR> Hull and Stanley Marcus became members of the court after this case was argued and taken under submission. The Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations for all asserted members of the putative class </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/95-3255.opn.html">ARMSTRONG V. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP. (4/16/1998, NO. 95-3255)<BR></A><BR> Hull and Stanley Marcus became members of the court after this case was argued and taken under submission. The Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations for all asserted members of the putative class </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/809C4A86B6C7FC2D882570F1007AA009/$file/0316976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The CPUC is also responsible for setting service levels and certain operating practices and for reviewing the Utility's capital and operating costs. The Utility is a wholly owned subsidiary of PG&E Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUzMTEtcHIgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5311-pr%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was convicted of several crimes. The ruling was not supported by the record. Messiah also maintains that the trial court's rulings with respect to two other Batson challenges he asserted were not supported by the record. Insurance agent Dennis Grasso was shot and killed in his Dobbs Ferry. Former professional boxer Kassan Supreme Messiah was indicted on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of robbery in the first degree. Messiah was tried by a jury in New York Supreme Court. Messiah subsequently was sentenced principally to an indeterminate term of thirty seven and a half years to life imprisonment. Which he is currently serving. This appeal concerns Messiah's claims that certain peremptory strikes the prosecutor exercised against prospective jurors during voir dire were racially motivated. Eight and ten. 3 THE COURT: Is that it? I do have a motion with regard to number two [Woodbury]. .... ASLAKSEN: I want to find out what the nonracial motivation is for the exercise of the peremptory challenge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-13198.man.html">JOHNSON V. ALABAMA (7/10/2001, NO. 99-13198)<BR></A><BR> Johnson was indicted and convicted of capital murder in the 1984 shooting death of Kenneth Cantrell in Morgan County. That judgment was later upheld on direct appeal and again on collateral attack by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May18/02-31068-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0867n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Broom was sentenced to 63 months of imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Was detained and arrested by state law enforcement officers. Broom was arrested once more when law enforcement officers served a search warrant at a residence in Memphis. Broom was also indicted on April 6. Broom was once again caught with nine grams of marijuana when state law enforcement officers searched his truck.1 On November 17. He was ineligible for an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-13198.man.html">JOHNSON V. ALABAMA (7/10/2001, NO. 99-13198)<BR></A><BR> Johnson was indicted and convicted of capital murder in the 1984 shooting death of Kenneth Cantrell in Morgan County. That judgment was later upheld on direct appeal and again on collateral attack by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196.htm">98-6196 -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999<BR></A><BR> His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUzMTEtcHIgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-5311-pr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was convicted of several crimes. The ruling was not supported by the record. Messiah also maintains that the trial court's rulings with respect to two other Batson challenges he asserted were not supported by the record. Insurance agent Dennis Grasso was shot and killed in his Dobbs Ferry. Former professional boxer Kassan Supreme Messiah was indicted on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of robbery in the first degree. Messiah was tried by a jury in New York Supreme Court. Messiah subsequently was sentenced principally to an indeterminate term of thirty seven and a half years to life imprisonment. Which he is currently serving. This appeal concerns Messiah's claims that certain peremptory strikes the prosecutor exercised against prospective jurors during voir dire were racially motivated. Eight and ten. 3 THE COURT: Is that it? I do have a motion with regard to number two [Woodbury]. .... ASLAKSEN: I want to find out what the nonracial motivation is for the exercise of the peremptory challenge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD3BB412E4DBFA0C88256DB7005BCEE1/$file/0255713.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must evaluate under AEDPA a state court's decision to apply harmless error review where a criminal defendant was not represented by counsel at trial. Facts Petitioner Henry Cordova was arrested outside his home after an altercation involving his neighbors. He was handcuffed by a Deputy Sheriff and placed in the back seat of a patrol car. Cordova was charged in the South Bay Municipal Court with three misdemeanor counts of battery two on his neighbors. Cordova was not eligible for representation by the Public Defender. So that the record will establish that `he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6065.htm">97-6065 -- MOORE V. REYNOLDS -- 07/13/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Moore was convicted of robbery in 1978 and served three and a half years in state confinement. Where Alex Fernandez was working the night shift. He was unsuccessful. Moore called Fernandez to ask if there were any rooms available. Moore told Caster she was to open the cash register while he tied and gagged Fernandez. <p> Moore and Caster drove to the Airline Motel and parked behind the motel. As Caster was attempting to wipe away her fingerprints. There was no answer and they drove to a cafe. Moore said </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9927.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the state trial court's voir dire questions were constitutionally inadequate under Morgan v. That he surrendered his right to testify at the criminal responsibility phase of his trial in reliance on advice from the trial court that was erroneous under Simmons v. I. Oken was sentenced to death in 1991 by a Baltimore County jury for the murder of Dawn Garvin.1 Four years earlier. A .25 caliber handgun seized from Oken's bedroom was later determined to be the murder weapon. A piece of rubber recovered from the crime scene was traced to Oken's tennis shoes. Several of Garvin's neighbors identified Oken as the person who had attempted to gain entry to their residences under various 1 Oken was separately convicted of murdering his sister in law. To determine whether the Maryland Court of Appeals' rejection of Oken's claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611074.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * The main issue in this appeal is whether a pro se petitioner for the writ of habeas corpus fairly presents his claim to a state habeas court when he makes a bare allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his state habeas petition and then describes in briefs and testimony in later proceedings several instances of alleged ineffective assistance. Who is indigent and was represented by appointed counsel. Was convicted of armed robbery. Because he was dissatisfied with his trial counsel's representation. Ogle requested and was granted new appointed counsel. When the motion was denied. Ogle's conviction was affirmed. 2 After exhausting his options for direct review of his conviction. The second count of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel raised in that petition complains that his counsel was ineffective for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-6364.htm">99-6364 -- MITCHELL V. GIBSON -- 08/13/2001<BR></A><BR> Mitchell's conviction was not constitutionally infirm. Mitchell's conviction and sentence are set out in the opinion disposing of his direct criminal appeal. Will be recited in this opinion in detail when necessary to our consideration of the individual issues before us. Mitchell was adjudicated a juvenile offender for the rape of a twelve year old neighborhood girl and was incarcerated in a juvenile correctional facility for approximately three years prior to the events at issue here. He was released on December 23. Was a college student who worked and volunteered at the Pilot Recreation Community Center. The Center served disadvantaged youth and was located near Mr. Scott was working at the Center with its director. Ross was leaving. Mitchell was wearing a rust or reddish colored stocking cap. Scott's car was gone and that the Center was not locked properly. Mitchell was standing in the doorway. Biggs that the Center was closed because the bathrooms were being cleaned. There were no cars in the parking lot and the building was empty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0796p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was paid. We hold that the district court should have exercised its discretion to abstain. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions that the district court dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. We asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the question of whether the district court properly should have abstained from entertaining the plaintiffs' claims under the abstention doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Appeals from the traffic court's decisions were heard by the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. A parking ticket is affixed to the vehicle. The owner of the ticketed vehicle is sent a notice by first class mail. The person to whom the ticket is issued has fifteen days to answer it. A failure to answer or to pay the fine will result in a Bureau of Administrative Adjudication ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1750.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 22. Harder and Sherin and Lodgen were on brief for appellee. were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. whether either the chapter 7 debtor or an unsecured creditor possesses standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order authorizing the chapter 7 trustee to settle an adversary proceeding to which the appellants were neither original nor intervening parties. The proceedings were converted to chapter 7. Was sold by the chapter 7 trustee for approximately $1 million. Whereby *The judgments Malkemus obtained in the probate court following relief *The judgments Malkemus obtained in the probate court following relief from the automatic stay were captioned judgments of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2056OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUzMTEtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5311-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was convicted of several crimes. The ruling was not supported by the record. Messiah also maintains that the trial court's rulings with respect to two other Batson challenges he asserted were not supported by the record. Insurance agent Dennis Grasso was shot and killed in his Dobbs Ferry. Former professional boxer Kassan Supreme Messiah was indicted on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of 2 robbery in the first degree. Messiah was tried by a jury in New York Supreme Court. Messiah subsequently was sentenced principally to an indeterminate term of thirty seven and a half years to life imprisonment. Which he is currently serving. This appeal concerns Messiah's claims that certain peremptory strikes the prosecutor exercised against prospective jurors during voir dire were racially motivated. THE COURT: Is that it? I do have a motion with regard to number two [Woodbury]. .... ASLAKSEN: I want to find out what the nonracial motivation is for the exercise of the peremptory challenge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0B498C291D9248288256C0C007E9680/$file/0055207.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two California appellate courts rejected our interpretation of section 704.950(c) and concluded that a judgment creditor is entitled to surplus equity that accrues after the abstract of judgment is recorded. There was no surplus equity at that time to satisfy the judgment. There was surplus equity. The fair market value of the house was $295. 000 and the debt on the first deed of trust was $188. There was $32. The bankruptcy court found that Wolfson's judgment lien had not attached and could never attach to Debtors' residence because there was no surplus equity in the residence when Wolfson recorded the abstract of judgment. Rptr. 1 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) states in pertinent part: A debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled . . . If such lien is (A) a judicial lien[.]. Is more generous than the exemption that applies to debtors in bankruptcy. If a homeowner recorded a declaration of There is also a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/943609P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of recklessly causing the death of her child. Persons act recklessly when they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI5MDVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2905_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) affirms the denial of the petition on the ground that the state court's affirmance of petitioner's conviction was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. The New York Supreme Court excluded Wade's alibi defense on the ground that his alibi notice was untimely under New York's Criminal Procedure Law Section 250.20. Upholding the constitutionality of the exclusion of the alibi was not an unreasonable interpretation of Supreme Court authority. The Trial Evidence Establishing Wade's Guilt The evidence at Wade's trial established the following: Lawrence Munson was shot and killed in the early morning of October 24. She was trying to talk to me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/03-61067-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court had ruled that the non diverse defendants were fraudulently joined and 1 refused to certify an interlocutory appeal of that ruling to us. Plaintiffs have forfeited their right to appeal presumably inadvertently because we must also dismiss this second appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Shepard was killed. Was injured. The McKee case was also removed to federal court. Where it was presided over by the same district judge who handled this case. KCS is a Missouri corporation with its home office and principal place of business in Kansas City. 2 2 1 Duett. Were named as defendants in both actions for their allegedly negligent operation of the train. pending in state court. Defendants While this suit was requests for propounded admissions asking Plaintiffs to admit that there was no basis for joining the train crew defendants in this action. Who are Mississippi residents. Were fraudulently joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that The requests for admissions were issued pursuant to Miss. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1625.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Raphael V. Will & Emery. On the brief were Douglas A. Of counsel on the brief were Don O. The jury's verdict that Ericsson's infringement was willful. Both of these types of products are accused of infringing the '338 patent in the present case. This patent concerns the way wireless signals are processed. The symbols are transmitted by means of electromagnetic waves. This effect is called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-6310.htm">99-6310 -- ROMANO V. GIBSON -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR> What degree of mental torture or conscious serious physical abuse preceding death is necessary to satisfy Oklahoma's especially heinous. Is required to investigate and present psychiatric evidence and evidence of a defendant's early childhood during a capital sentencing proceeding. That the State does not need to appeal separately the district court's adverse procedural bar determination in order to reassert that defense on appeal. <p> <strong>I.</strong> <strong>FACTS</strong> <p> Romano and Woodruff were convicted of killing a jeweler. Romano was serving a prison sentence and was only free on weekends. A critical issue in the case was how long Sarfaty had been dead before a friend first discovered his body. The State's theory was that the murder occurred on Saturday. Romano and Woodruff do not have alibis for at least part of that time period. <p> Evidence supporting the State's theory included the fact that Sarfaty usually went to a bar. The last time he was seen there was when he left the club about 2:00 A.M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2130.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MacDonald LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on consolidated brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. The operative pleadings are the two amended complaints.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/003791P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Koste argues that (1) he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the state trial court failed to adequately inquire into his allegation that his trial attorney had a conflict of The Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall. Sitting by designation. 1 interest and (2) assuming he was required to show prejudice resulting from his attorney's conflict of interest. Koste also argues that (3) he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the district court on his claim that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to obtain a mental examination prior to his guilty pleas. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Koste was charged by indictment in the City of St. Such sentences to run concurrently with each other and with the life sentence he was then serving.2 At Koste's plea hearing in the Circuit Court of the City of St. The trial judge asked if Koste authorized his attorney to say he was pleading guilty. The trial judge further asked if Koste was pleading guilty because he was guilty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-9177.man.html">STATE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF MICH. V. BARRY (2/19/1999, NO. 97-9177)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Because the partial summary judgment order involved here was not a final decision. There was no subsequent motion for partial summary judgment on. This would have allowed the parties to appeal the May 27 partial summary judgment order.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0598n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us for the second time. Bradley and Robbie Cootware were inmates at the Dickinson County Jail in Michigan. Into his cell under the pretense that there was a water leak. They were able to open the exit door and escape through the garage. Bradley was convicted of twelve felonies: escape from jail. Was harmless error that did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court further finds that the defendant has not established good cause for the claim that these errors were not raised as issues in the appeal of right. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI4ODJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2882_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Provides an opportunity to amplify our reasons for the form of remand we have used in some pending cases with sentences that are erroneous in light of Booker. The sentence originally imposed would have been materially different. Background The jury was entitled to find the following facts. 2In February 2002. Williams was arrested and questioned about his prior transportation of ammonia. He admitted that he was aware that the ammonia was highly concentrated and would have to be diluted prior to use. Starting from a base offense level of 8 applicable to transportation of hazardous materials The airline Williams chose to transport the ammonia infelicitously (at least on that day) called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug23/03-61067-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court had 1 ruled that the non diverse defendants were fraudulently joined and refused to certify an interlocutory appeal of that ruling to us. Plaintiffs have forfeited their right to appeal presumably inadvertently because we must also dismiss this second appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Shepard was killed. Was injured. Were named as defendants in both actions for their allegedly negligent operation of the train. pending in state court. Defendants While this suit was requests for propounded admissions asking Plaintiffs to admit that there was no basis for joining the train crew defendants in this action. Who are Mississippi residents. Were fraudulently joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The McKee case was also removed to federal court. Where it was presided over by the same district judge who handled this case. KCS is a Missouri corporation with its home office and principal place of business in Kansas City. The requests for admissions were issued pursuant to Miss. As the district court's remand decision was not certified for interlocutory appellate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-5085.htm">00-5085 -- ROBERTS V. CHAMPION -- 06/12/2001<BR></A><BR> We previously granted petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of whether his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge on direct appeal the trial court's instruction to the jury that petitioner was presumed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT<BR></A><BR> Holley argued the causes for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/01-6156.htm">01-6156 -- BONDY V. SCOTT -- 01/30/2002<BR></A><BR> We deny his request for a COA and dismiss the appeal. <p> <center><strong>I</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Bondy was convicted on February 14. For which he was sentenced to two consecutive fifteen year terms of imprisonment. (2) that the repetition of the allegations through hearsay testimony of multiple witnesses was improper bolstering of the victim's testimony under Oklahoma law. Bondy raised the following ten grounds for reversing his conviction: <p> (1) the trial court improperly refused a line of questioning designed to show state witness Dorothy Bondy was biased. <p> <p> (2) trial counsel was ineffective in not introducing a letter written to Bondy by his wife. Appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue on appeal. <p> <p> (3) the state offered testimony that it knew or should have known was coerced. <p> (4) state witness Russell Johnson's testimony was perjured and misleading. <p> <p> (5) evidence admitted through state witness Detective Teresa Sterling was manufactured and prejudicial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun22/02-30937-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Grillette was granted a Certificate of Appealability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4088.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fairfax Nursing Home is a skilled nursing facility participating in Medicare and Medicaid. Fairfax was assessed a civil monetary penalty ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6279.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. I. Background Defendant Dawn Marie Nelson and eight co defendants were indicted for drug and firearms offenses in early 2003. Her sentence as imposed by the Court and the manner in which the sentence is determined. Provided the sentence is within or below the applicable guideline range determined by the Court to apply to this case. . . . c. It is provided that (i) defendant specifically does not waive the right to appeal an upward departure from the <hr> sentencing guideline range determined by the Court to apply to this case. (ii) her waiver of rights to appeal and to bring collateral challenges shall not apply to appeals or challenges based on changes in the law reflected in Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court cases decided after the date of this agreement that are held by the Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court to have retroactive effect. Which was to be imposed in the event that the sentencing guidelines were found unconstitutional. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0347p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court denied Smith's petition on the ground that Smith could have pursued further remedies through the Ohio courts but lost that opportunity by failing to comply with the state procedural rules regarding the timing of filing an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. That counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Smith's habeas petition on the ground that Smith cannot rely on ineffective assistance of counsel to overcome the procedural default of his claims because he has not shown that he would have timely appealed the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals but for his counsel's deficient performance. Thus he cannot show that he was prejudiced thereby. Smith was sentenced to fourteen years of imprisonment. Which was to run consecutively to Smith's ninety three month federal sentence for conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That there was insufficient evidence to link him to the two bank robberies that were part of count one of the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0374301BCA1155288256C1C0057F6F4/$file/0056844.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the question of whether we have appellate jurisdiction over a district court order remanding to ABADA v. Schwab was the largest provider of on line brokerage services. Schwab's growth in the on line trading market was fueled by a marketing and advertising campaign that extolled its on line trading service as convenient. Market orders entered while the market is open are subject to immediate execution. Abada alleges that Schwab's on line system was. Abada claims this capacity was insufficient to meet customer demand. (Nasdaq ticket symbol </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40484E0BB969D3E8882572C9007A26A0/$file/0616100.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appeal is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253.1 The petitioner appellant. Contends that the district court erred when it rejected Nunes's assertions that he was charged and sentenced under California's recidivist statute in violation of the Fifth. By the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA1NDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0541-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Town of Wallkill appeal from the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on appellee Clubside. Holding that Clubside did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the extension of the sewer district. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/79F6578CFCA7F8CE88256ECB0001E661/$file/0199017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the district court correctly rejected Sanders' claim that the jury that convicted him was drawn from a jury venire that unconstitutionally failed to reflect the number of Hispanics in Kern County. Where he was tried. We also conclude that this error was not harmless. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Sanders was found guilty of murdering of Janice Allen. Who was a drug dealer. Maxwell was one of his customers. As was Thompson. The plan was to lure Boender to Maxwell's home. Have Sanders whom Boender did not know attack and rob Boender. Then have Sanders bind and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI3NTQtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2754-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Those defendants who are initially released subject to an order of conditions may. Be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-7035.htm">97-7035 -- U.S. V. LONDONO -- 04/15/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Nestor Londono appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1854.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dana & Gould were on brief for appellees Biopure Corporation. Allen & Snyder were on brief for appellants. Jr. and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellee. The district court entered two separate summary judgment orders for intervenor CFI.1 The first judgment was against Trainor and awarded CFI a constructive trust over Trai nor's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-3123a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Was on the brief. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Before AEDPA was enacted. While the direct appeal of his criminal convictions was pending. He filed a motion for authorization to file a second s 2255 motion in order to pursue his claim that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of former appellate counsel in his direct appeal. He fails to show that applying AEDPA standards to his second s 2255 motion would have an improper retroactive effect. His further contention that he should be allowed to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. s 2241 is not properly before this court. His constitutional challenges to AEDPA are foreclosed by Su preme Court precedent. That is. Cir. 1994). 1 Section 2255 provides in part: A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B3CEEC82D3324EE882571E7007F8397/$file/9899003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and found Comer to have competently and voluntarily waived his habeas appeal right. We hold that Comer's sentence was invalid and hereby grant the writ of habeas corpus based on the violation of Comer's due process rights that occurred when he was sentenced to death while nearly naked. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Crime The facts of this case are deeply disturbing. It is unclear whether Pritchard died immediately from the The facts related to Comer's crime. Conviction are largely taken from the Supreme Court of Arizona's 1990 decision in this case. Remembering from their earlier encounter that Jones and Smith were in possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Jones managed to escape while Comer was fixing his truck. She was later picked up by a passing motorist and taken to the sheriff's home. SCHRIRO Charges Comer and Willis were charged in Maricopa County with the first degree murder and armed robbery of Pritchard and the armed robbery. Comer was charged with two counts of sexual abuse and three counts of sexual assault of Jones. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/021833P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude his default is not excused by ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in failing to raise the claim on direct appeal. The claim is procedurally barred. Williams was present during the voir dire of the jury panel. He was not present. He did not return to the courtroom until after the selected jurors were seated. The jury was then sworn and the remainder of the venire panel excused. Although he argues the merits of this constitutional claim as though he were appealing a federal conviction. He is instead a state inmate seeking federal habeas relief. The first question is whether he has preserved the claim for federal habeas review. It is procedurally defaulted. The federal habeas petitioner must have properly raised the ineffectiveness claim in state court. Williams argued to the district court that both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to raise the lack of presence claim in state court. Williams did argue in a motion to recall the Missouri Court of Appeals mandate that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue on direct appeal that the trial court erred </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52A930BAC247AE2A88256F500081EEA1/$file/0317036.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The record does not reflect whether counsel or the court were aware that the jury had written </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1192.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After first establishing that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He alleged that while he was a Colorado state prisoner. The certificate of mailing in the original complaint is dated March 2. West was released on March 2. West was not incarcerated when the third amended complaint was filed. After briefing on the motion to dismiss was complete. The court granted the motion the next day. (1) We will refer to defendants Correctional Corporation of America and Jim Keith as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/10/974078P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is whether Roe was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his appellate attorney failed to request plain error review of an erroneous first The Honorable Richard S. Roe is entitled to a new direct appeal at which he may raise this instruction issue to the state court for plain error review. Roe was convicted of first degree murder and armed criminal action. As they were leaving the scene. A videotape of [Roe's] confession was played for the jury at trial. [Roe's] defense was that John Hamil had shot the victim. This was a proper way to raise the ineffective assistance claim in state court. So federal habeas review is not procedurally barred. That counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable. That counsel's ineffective assistance was prejudicial. That is. There was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-9177.man.html">STATE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF MICH. V. BARRY (2/19/1999, NO. 97-9177)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Because the partial summary judgment order involved here was not a final decision. There was no subsequent motion for partial summary judgment on. This would have allowed the parties to appeal the May 27 partial summary judgment order.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032871P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eleventh circuits1 in holding that a remand for resentencing is not required unless the defendant meets his burden to demonstrate plain error prejudice under controlling Supreme Court precedents. That is. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3077enbanc.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Theodore B. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Donald E. With him on the brief were Jeffrey G. Of counsel on the brief were Ronald L. With him on the brief were Martha B. Because the VEOA is subject to equitable tolling and Kirkendall is entitled to a hearing on his USERRA claim. Was chosen to fill the position. All of which were denied. The board has no authority to decide whether DoL should have waived the 60 day deadline. The board affirmed the AJ's decision that the VEOA claim was precluded for failure to timely file. The board held that Kirkendall's assertion that he was not selected based on his status as a disabled veteran was cognizable. That Kirkendall had offered no proof that his veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor in his nonselection. Review was denied. Cir. 2006) (per curiam order). 05 3077 3 The order granting en banc review asked the parties to brief three issues: (1) Is the 15 day period for filing appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(B) subject to equitable tolling? (2) Is the 60 day period for filing a claim with the Secretary of Labor set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) subject to equitable tolling? (3) Are all veterans who allege a USERRA violation entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7701? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064139np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Edwards filed a motion for a new trial which was denied by the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands.1 The Appellate Division affirmed. I. As we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the facts of this case. We will not restate those facts except as necessary for our analysis. Edwards was charged in an eleven count information under the Virgin Islands Code with committing a variety of sexual acts against his minor daughter. 1997 when M.E. was seven and eight years old. The information That court is now known as the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. Which makes it a crime to have sexual contact with a person under the age of thirteen.2 Edwards moved for a new trial under Rule 135 of the Rules of the Territorial Court which that court denied in an opinion and order dated June 29. Edwards was charged with having his daughter rub his penis with her hand. We note that the Appellate Division appears to have used. It is unclear why trial testimony from the record was not used. Includes alleged events that occurred when M .E. was five years old ­ events that she did not testify to at trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/023961p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> § 462 was repealed prior to the date on which she filed her petition. We will reverse and remand. Croix USVI 00841 1847 Attorney for Appellant Tyler was born on September 28. Who was legally married to Heinrich Nielsen. Tyler alleges that her natural father was in fact Francis. Tyler first became aware that Francis was her biological father at the age of seven in 1954. While others were subsequent. 1 Tyler alleges that she enjoyed an open and loving father/daughter relationship with Francis. Francis promised to make changes to his bank account so that Marcus Tyler would be able to attend college and so that Tyler would not have to struggle financially. Informed Tyler that his father told him that she was his sister. Seeking a decree that Tyler is the legal daughter of Francis. 2 Louis Ar mstr ong. The petition is ambiguous as to whether Francis spoke to these other individuals after he was married (which would have therefore triggered the spousal consent requirement of 16 V.I.C. § 462. Discussed infra) or after he was no longer married (because he was a widower. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/989009.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case. Riley pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and was tried by jury in Kent County Superior Court in December 1982. He was represented by appointed counsel. Riley placed a quart bottle of beer on the counter and announced that the store was being robbed. The prosecution intr oduced evidence that Riley's fingerprints were found on the bottle of beer that had been placed on the counter. Riley took the stand in his own defense and testified that he was in Philadelphia with his mother celebrating her birthday when the robbery occurred. Although Riley's mother was present in court at the beginning of the trial. No other alibi witnesses were presented. The penalty phase of the trial was held. After Riley was sentenced on the remaining counts for which he had been convicted. This claim is procedurally barred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0160p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGilvery was charged with the same offense in a superceding indictment. McGilvery was charged in a superceding information with one count of misprision of felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. It was exclusively within the government's discretion to determine whether McGilvery had provided substantial assistance. Including any right under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to appeal on the grounds that the sentence was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines. McGilvery was sentenced to twenty one months' imprisonment. 2005) (citations omitted). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0307p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted at trial in a state court of conspiring with her sons to murder the boys' father. A federal writ of habeas corpus was subsequently granted on the ground that her Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense precluded the state trial court from barring evidence that Mr. The writ should not have been issued unless exclusion of the evidence in question involved an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></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-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411911.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts The facts are recited verbatim from the opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal from Jones's conviction and sentence. He was sleeping with his ten year old brother. Was sleeping with their parents. Tony's grandmother was sleeping by herself in a third bedroom of the home. Tony was awakened by a disturbance inside the home. When the light in his bedroom was turned on. Was unable to do so due to his injuries. All four had been severely wounded and there was blood all over them. Charlie and Brenda responded when Tony asked if anyone was still alive. His parents were dead. Were treated for their wounds. Who was standing in the doorway to Charlie's bedroom. His mother and father were both moaning as the appellant repeatedly stabbed them. Charlie was hit in the head several times. She stated that Giles was the one that shot her. He was shot once through the heart and once in the left arm. He was stabbed. Embry testified that Carl Nelson was alive when he was stabbed in the neck. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/66B1D9D4DCF2001288256FB10079C154/$file/0315715.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are hereby amended. The amended opinion and amended dissent are filed concurrently herewith. The Opinion and Dissent are amended as follows: 1. The petitioner must have either referenced specific provisions of the federal constitution . . . or cited to federal case law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-5071.htm">99-5071 -- GIBSON V. KLINGER -- 11/14/2000<BR></A><BR> Background</strong></center> <p> The relevant procedural facts are as follows. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review</center> </strong> <p> We must first address whether we have properly acquired jurisdiction of this appeal. That jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043026npo1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will dismiss the appeal and summarily affirm the judgment of conviction of the District Court. The facts are known to them. We will discuss only those facts pertinent to our conclusion. The District Court granted the Government's motion to dismiss both counts at the time of sentencing. 2 1 voluntarily waived </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/002777P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner was convicted by a jury for murder and sentenced to death by the state court judge after the jury failed to reach a decision on punishment. To apply correctly Missouri's statutory scheme for imposing the death penalty was plain error and deprived petitioner of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. Petitioner cross appeals from the District Court's rejection of his claim that his Fourteenth Amendment right to a unanimous verdict was violated by the trial judge's refusal to re poll the jury after a juror changed his mind as to guilt during the penalty phase of the trial. I. Petitioner was charged with two counts of first degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action for the April 17. Petitioner shot one victim while the victim was on his knees. Petitioner presented several witnesses who testified that he was a peaceful. Denying that he shot the victims and claiming that his statement to the police was induced by promises and threats. The jury was dismissed for the day at 4:55 p.m. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043026np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will dismiss the appeal and summarily affirm the judgment of conviction of the District Court. The facts are known to them. We will discuss only those facts pertinent to our conclusion. The District Court granted the Government's motion to dismiss both counts at the time of sentencing. 2 1 voluntarily waived </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0323p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district court should have vacated not only his sentence. Petitioner was convicted of hiring James Earl Darby to murder Archie Moore in violation of Ohio Revised Code §§ 2903.01(A) and 2929.04(A)(2). Berry later told some friends that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1029a.html">DACCARETT-GHIA V. CSMNR IRS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-6258.htm">01-6258 -- SPEARS V. MULLIN -- 08/12/2003<BR></A><BR> Were cruising around Pauls Valley. They were joined at various times by Powell. Spears began driving the truck because Thompson was intoxicated. Daniels that he was going to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1095.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His conviction was affirmed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-5018.htm">00-5018 -- JACKSON V. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 06/26/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041307p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pled guilty to felony murder under the misapprehension that he was eligible for the death penalty for that crime. Felony murder in New Jersey was not in fact a capital offense. The District Court ultimately granted relief on grounds that the state court's mistake about Johnson's death eligibility for felony murder was structural error. The threshold question on this appeal is whether Johnson's claim is procedurally defaulted. This petition was summarily denied. That petition was filed more than five years after his sentence was handed down. Thus was time barred under New Jersey Rule of Court 3:22 12. The District Court misconstrued the scope of the actual innocence exception by applying it where the petitioner wrongly was led to believe he was death eligible. Where the death penalty was not actually imposed. We hold that the touchstone of the actual innocence inquiry is innocence of the sentence actually imposed. Not innocence of a sentence for which the petitioner was merely eligible. We also conclude that Johnson's death eligibility claim was procedurally defaulted because of his failure to bring the claim before the New Jersey state courts in accordance with their procedural rules. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1633p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were charged with third degree assault and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Wilson David and his four year old son were driving home from David's sister's house. Four shots were fired at them. Neither was injured. Why David was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1633p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were <p>charged with third degree assault and possession of a <p>firearm during a crime of violence. Wilson David and his four year old son were <p>driving home from David's sister's house. Four shots were fired at them. Neither was <p>injured. Why David was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061766p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was indicted on fourteen counts charging wire fraud. Gwinnett was sentenced to the custody of the United 2 States Bureau of Prisons for a term of 30 months. The Government counters that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-7167.htm">98-7167 -- VAN WOUDENBERG V. GIBSON -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Turrentine was convicted in the Oklahoma courts on four counts of first degree murder. He was sentenced to death. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He is currently an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary under the custody of Warden Mike Mullin. Background The facts as found by the state court are. The facts of this case are both sad and horrific. Richardson was having an affair with two other men. Knew of these affairs because she was apparently a friend and confidant of Ms. Stevenson were cheating him out of money. Told her that he was at Ms. Richardson's house and that things were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0227p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was denied. Bell Page 2 We have now heard Cone's appeal three times because the United States Supreme Court has twice reversed our decisions granting relief. We will affirm the district court's original judgment denying Cone's petition. The details of Cone's brutal crimes are not material to the issues we address in this appeal. They are fully set forth in Cone v. The details of this case's procedural history are material to the issues before us on this appeal and we recount them now. The jury found four aggravating factors: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0112A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 7 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-3129a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A.J. On the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. We conclude that the alternative sentencing methodology employed by the district court was consistent with the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Booker and that Simpson's sentence must therefore be affirmed. Simpson was convicted in federal court in Virginia of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Simpson was deported from the United States on October 23. Simpson was arrested in the District of Columbia for threatening to kill his wife with a kitchen knife. He was indicted on one count of reentry by an alien deported following conviction for an aggravated felony. The parties agreed that Simpson's base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was 8. That his offense level should be enhanced to 24 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/03-1137.htm">03-1137 -- U.S. V. ANDERSON -- 07/06/2004<BR></A><BR> An undercover Denver police officer and two uniformed officers arrived at a southwest Denver home in which they suspected occupants were manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine. Anderson's argument that his consent to search the trailers was invalid because the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for possessing drug paraphernalia.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002324A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts underlying this dispute are as follows. At the center of this case is Rule 11(c)(1)(A). Or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. The requirements of the rule are straightforward: The party seeking sanctions must serve the Rule 11 motion on the opposing party at least twenty one days before filing the motion with the district court. Sanctions may be sought only if the challenged pleading is not withdrawn or corrected within twenty one days after service of the motion. Motions have been disallowed as untimely when filed after a point in the litigation when the lawyer sought to be sanctioned lacked an opportunity to correct or withdraw the challenged submission. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is clear that this extremely probative testimony requires that we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. Where his opinion goes too far is in its accusations of fraud on the court. While his explanation for the omission of the Sultan deposition from the official record before the court is possible in the narrowest sense. Sultan's deposition was taken by trial counsel for respondent. Was not included with the evidence submitted as part of Bell's motion for summary judgment. A genuine mistake was made. One which was not realized until a different attorney looked at the case. To conclude otherwise is to disbelieve sworn testimony by an officer of the court. When in fact it was submitted to the panel prior to oral argument as part of the abeyance motion. We believe it is appropriate to use our inherent equitable powers to expand the record on appeal to consider the deposition. Where through error or accident material matters are omitted or misstated. While some circuit courts have held that Rule 10(e) allows the inclusion of material the district court did not consider. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/052324P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 1 Mickelson was charged on December 16. Special Condition 12 required Mickelson to have no contact with children under the age of 18 without the prior written consent of the probation office. 2 On appeal. Mickelson contends that his 51 month sentence was unreasonable. That Special Condition 12 was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1715_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These comments were quoted by the Illinois Appellate Court and are contained in the record before this Court: 2 The reversal had no impact on Bartlett's total sentence. Sheppard [Defendant's counsel] has spent a lot of time telling you about how Johnathan [sic] Bartlett is cloaked with the presumption of innocence. The burden we have is beyond a reasonable doubt. Shlifka: It's not like a brick wall at all where you have to remove every single brick. Do you have a doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. The prosecution was not alone. The prosecution's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986882.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was armed with a rifle. While Peoples was armed with a deadly weapon. Recommended that Peoples be sentenced to death for each murder by an 11 to 1 vote. 2 This opinion is organized as follows. He joined Peoples and the Franklins who were sitting around a table. 3 Peoples knew about the Corvette because he had been a member of a work crew that built a fence around the Franklins's backyard and from time to time had performed odd jobs in and around the Franklin residence. 3 Peoples soon left the table to look for the Franklins' ten year old son. He brought him to the table where Gooden and the boy's parents were sitting. Gooden replaced her gag and 4 Paul Franklin was seriously disabled as a result of shrapnel injuries suffered in Vietnam. Gooden remained with the Corvette and pick up truck while all of this was taking place. Was walking toward the Talladega Downs when Peoples arrived at the apartment complex. He told her that it was an early birthday present for his wife. As they were talking. She noticed what he was wearing a light colored shirt and blue jeans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90FCD57BC7CFC40788256EA600529EF7/$file/0315715.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Constitution by permitting the jury to view what he contends was a highly prejudicial videotape of his interrogation. The child was sick with flu like symptoms at the time and slept most of the day. While his girlfriend was gone. Was that after his girlfriend returned and he left the apartment. Castillo was tried by jury in the State Court of Arizona for Maricopa County. MCFADDEN jury to view a videotape of the police interrogating Castillo that he argues was highly prejudicial. Which we have viewed. The detective asserted that the autopsy </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-6397.htm">98-6397 -- SMALLWOOD V. GIBSON -- 09/10/1999<BR></A><BR> Smallwood was convicted of First Degree Murder and Third Degree Arson in May of 1993. (3) petitioner's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the trial. (5) the jury instructions given by the trial court were unconstitutional because they permitted the jury to ignore mitigating evidence. (6) the jury instructions were constitutionally impermissible because they failed to state that. (7) the trial court violated petitioner's constitutional rights by failing to instruct the jury that there is a presumption of life in death penalty cases. (8) the jury instructions were unconstitutional because they did not properly limit the jury's consideration of sympathy to the defendant. Cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-5158.htm">03-5158 -- U.S. V. HARDY -- 06/09/2004<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-6195.htm">02-6195 -- U.S. V. EDGAR -- 10/30/2003<BR></A><BR> This agreement waived his right to appeal directly and to challenge collaterally his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2039.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whitman & Ranson were on brief for appellees. were on brief for appellees. Due to the fact that the State of New Hampshire had banned Seabrook construction cost recoveries through PSNH rate increases until after the facility was brought on line. PSNH was forced to seek chapter 11 protection prior to the completion of the second unit. The NHPUC order was affirmed by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire on **NUSC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northeast Utility. A public **NUSC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northeast Utility. Appellants objected to confirmation of the reorganization plan on the grounds that the approved rate agreement on which the reorganiza tion was based would deprive PSNH of its prudent investment in Seabro ok and that the proposed reorganization therefore was not in the best interests of appellants. Who were cross examined by appellants. Since the rate agreement was within the range of results reasonably expectable in a litigated rate case. Which was denied by the bankruptcy judge after hearing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0284p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court imposed a 720 month sentence (the statutory maximum) because Poynter was a repeat child sex offender. Poynter traveled from Kentucky to Tennessee to have sex with a fourteenyear old male. Because Poynter was convicted of a sex crime and had previously </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034162R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: My colleagues have written at length regarding their views on the issue of jurisdiction under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). Their views are incorrect. I believe my colleagues have allowed the importance of the issues involved in the underlying merits of this appeal to cloud their judgment on the purely legal question of jurisdiction. What is now before us is an ordinary question concerning appellate jurisdiction over a discovery order. There is no question that CIPA § 7 authorizes the government to take an interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court that authorizes the disclosure of classified information to the defendant. 18 (9th Cir. 1984) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6226.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Leech was driving his motor home when he was stopped by Enid. After Leech was arrested. The off white substance was tested and determined to be methamphetamine. Leech was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Count 1) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Count 2) in the District Court of Garfield County. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven years and six months. Leech also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the warrantless search of Leech's motor home and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise those two claims in his direct appeal. The OCCA noted: Petitioner's Propositions One and Two both raise issues that could have been raised by Petitioner on direct appeal . . . . The District Court addressed this ineffective assistance claim by finding its underlying search and seizure claim was meritless. Among other things: After all the evidence and argument were concluded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1174.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ropes & Gray were on brief. P.C. were on brief. Circuit Judge. that the district court's abstention based remand order is not immediately appealable and that mandamus is not an appropriate alternative. Because this jurisdictional determination involves an issue on which the circuits are somewhat less than uniform. BACKGROUND The controversy that is before us finds its genesis in a beguilingly simple question: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4316.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is at the center of the present controversy. Which is the fair market value of the newspaper. If one appraised value is 110% <hr> greater than the other appraised value. Because MediaNews' appraised value was 110% greater than that from Tribune Publishing. Concluding that MPI's appraisal was an arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIxODgtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2188-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (ii) a police detective should have known that his inquiry regarding the natural color of the petitioner's hair was reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response. That Miranda warnings should have been given. Circuit Judge: The question presented is whether. That the District Court erred in determining that the police detective should have known that his inquiry regarding the natural color of the petitioner's hair was reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response and. That Miranda warnings should have been given. Was objectively reasonable. The application for a writ of habeas corpus should have been denied. Juana Hernandez ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3831.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that a clause in the agreement stipulating that it would be governed by Georgia law was enforceable. The Joneses have attempted to challenge the merits of the district court's choice of law decision. We conclude that only the ruling on the preliminary injunction request is properly before us. One of InfoCure's officers approached Susan at a trade show and told her that InfoCure was interested in acquiring PRISM. 000 price tag was to be calculated using the average stock price over the 20 day period prior to the closing. Relying on the diversity jurisdiction of the federal court (because the Joneses were both citizens of Indiana. InfoCure is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. The individual defendants were citizens of Alabama and Connecticut. Or in the alternative to have it transferred to the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Joneses moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent InfoCure from taking various actions that were allegedly irreparably damaging PRISM. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-8046.htm">96-8046 -- PARKHURST V. SHILLINGER -- 10/23/1997<BR></A><BR> We affirm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054779p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Granted Nara's petition based upon his claim that he was mentally incompetent when he pleaded guilty to murdering his wife and mother in law. We will affirm. 2 I. He was then involuntarily committed to the Connellsville State General Hospital and treated with anti depressants and an antipsychotic tranquilizer. Nara was released. He turned himself in 3 and was returned to Pennsylvania to face two charges of firstdegree murder. He was then confined at the Fayette County prison. John Walton of the Fayette County Mental Health Center advised Gentile that Nara was in need of immediate evaluation and help. Requesting that the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas transfer Nara to Mayview State Hospital for psychiatric evaluation and commitment because he was a risk of harm to himself or others. Reported that Nara was neither mentally ill nor in need of treatment. He was transferred back to the prison. 1984 ­ eighty two days after the plea colloquy ­ Nara was committed to Farview State Hospital as a suicide risk. Nara again attempted suicide and was recommitted to Farview. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0679n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Appellant Maurice Mackey was convicted of murder and attempted murder. Mackey alleges that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. That he was denied due process by the government's use. Maurice Mackey and his girlfriend Stephanie Whitmore were at a bar known as the Office Lounge in Cleveland. Also there were off duty out of uniform Cleveland Police Officer David Smith and his friend Edward Wright. When Whitmore returned to the table she and defendant Mackey were sharing. It is undisputed that both men then drew handguns. It is also undisputed that Mackey shot Smith. Neither Whitmore nor Wright were in a position to see which man drew first. There were no other witnesses to the shooting. Neither man had any reason to know the other was carrying a firearm. Mackey was carrying his gun illegally. Smith was not in uniform. Russell coroner testified that forensic evidence showed Smith had indeed drawn his gun at the time he was shot. The gun was found gripped in his hand away from the holster. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0C1E076881480A88882572EB004CB7AE/$file/0456389.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That California order of dismissal was not appealed. Is now final. We conclude that we have jurisdiction. Was scheduled to fly from Bangkok to Los Angeles. Thai Airways employees refused to allow Gupta to board because they determined his United States Visa was invalid. Gupta was unable to fly to Los Angeles on this date and claims he missed a lucrative business meeting. Thai Airways successfully moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction1 asserting it was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0C6E1C7DC1A09BD988256DC60078BE71/$file/0271742.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Does the appellate court have jurisdiction to review the entire proceeding? This court has not yet had occasion to consider whether we may exercise jurisdiction where the agency decision under review was rendered pursuant to both the agency's authority under a statute providing for original jurisdiction in the district court and its authority under a statute providing for immediate review in the court of appeals.2 This circuit has considered the question whether a district court may exercise jurisdiction where plaintiffs assert independent statutory challenges to agency action taken pursuant to a statute vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of appeals. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [2] Several circuits addressing this question have held that where an agency decision has more than one basis of authority. Cir. 1994) (holding that where a challenged agency rule was issued pursuant to the authority of two statutes providing for separate paths of judicial review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7304.html">DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR> <st1:State>DC</st1:State></st1:place> argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the <st1:country region><st1:place>United States</st1:place></st1:country region>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Donald E. Argued for petitioner Paralyzed Veterans of <st1:country region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/014002P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is subject to an award of sanctions in the amount of $66. Who is now the appellee in this Court. This order was evidently entered in aid of Mr. Which dismissed the appeal on the ground that the discovery order of which review was sought was not final. He argues that the discovery order in question was in fact a final order. That the discovery order in dispute was not final. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. We have jurisdiction to review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/99-7018.htm">99-7018 -- RIDGEWAY V. KAISER -- 07/28/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Wayne Curtis Ridgeway. Ridgeway subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea contending it was not knowing and voluntary. Ridgeway suggested his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective because they failed to raise these issues on direct appeal. Ridgeway failed to show cause why either he or his counsel were prevented from constructing or raising these claims on direct appeal. Ridgeway was somehow improperly sentenced as an habitual offender. (3) his state appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to raise the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel in not challenging the use of his prior convictions. (4) he was never informed of the actual minimum or maximum range of punishment for the crimes at issue. <p> The district court assigned the petition to a federal magistrate judge who recommended dismissal of Mr. So his plea was voluntary. Presume the state court's factual findings are correct. Unless </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0215p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alvin Vonner was charged with and later pled guilty to distributing cocaine. That it is unreasonable. A Presentence Report was prepared and disclosed to the parties on March 22. A revised version of the Report was subsequently disclosed on June 21. The defense filed a notice of no objection to the Report.1 Sentencing was delayed in anticipation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Booker. The record indicates that Vonner was the fourth of his mother's ten children. Vonner was caught shoplifting underwear. Vonner's mother was also a heavy drinker who failed to supervise her children properly. Vonner was twice placed in foster care. He was first placed in foster care at the age of four when his mother stabbed a boyfriend in the chest and then absconded to avoid arrest. Vonner was again placed in foster care from ages seven to eight after the police received information that Vonner and his siblings were being left alone in the home for extended periods of time. Vonner's father was intermittently present in Vonner's life. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9834.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Bobby Lee Harris was convicted of first degree murder. Harris was sentenced to death for his murder conviction and sentenced to 100 years imprisonment for the remaining convictions. Where Harris is incarcerated. Joe Simpson were employed by the victim. The plan was for the defendant to restrain Redd while Simpson bound him. They were then going to rob him and leave him on the shore. Redd was robbed of his wallet containing approximately $80.00 and of his keys. Then was either thrown from the boat or placed on a pile of oyster shells. As the defendant and Simpson were returning to the dock around 2:30 a.m. They were stopped by a game warden and cited for traveling without running lights. The victim was stabbed three times in the back. He was found on a pile of oyster shells along Bear's Inlet around 6:15 a.m. He was transported to the Naval Hospital at Camp Lejeune and died on the operating table around noon. The cause of death was exsanguination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5171.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction over that part of this interlocutory appeal. That we do not have appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's rulings with regard to defendants' Rooker Feldman and collateral estoppel defenses. I. Plaintiff Angela Suasnavas (Suasnavas) is the natural mother of Shari Kay Phillips (Phillips). Plaintiffs Margaret Luethje and Arnold Luethje (the Luethjes) are married. They are Suasnavas's mother and step father. Plaintiff Evie Burris (Burris) is Suasnavas's half sister. She is the daughter of Margaret Luethje and Arnold Luethje. The Luethjes are the natural grandparents of Burris's children. Jones are or were child welfare social workers employed by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. <hr> Plaintiffs filed a civil rights action against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendants: (1) falsely accused Arnold Luethje of having sexually molested Suasnavas when she was a child. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8045.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> Gerald Barkell was convicted by a jury in Wyoming state court on two counts of third degree sexual assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 2253. Barkell's claim that his attorney was ineffective in preparing for trial. (3) the state court has not ruled on whether he would be entitled to relief if he were able to prove his allegations. Barkell was charged with sexual assault after his 10 year old stepdaughter. Was appointed to represent him. Barkell was sentenced to consecutive terms of five to seven years' imprisonment on each count. Stating that the Wyoming Supreme Court's adjudication of his claims was neither contrary to. A federal court will grant habeas relief only when the applicant establishes that the state court decision was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-5181.htm">01-5181 -- ANDERSON V. MULLIN -- 04/25/2003<BR></A><BR> That the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient only as to the element distinguishing first degree burglary from the lesser included offense of second degree burglary: i.e. The court stated: <p> Appellants contend the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for First Degree Burglary as the State failed to prove all of the elements of the offense. Specifically that the dwelling house was occupied at the time of the breaking and entering. The breaking and entering must occur when there is a person within the dwelling house. The house was empty. While the OCCA could have imposed a conviction for second degree burglary. The cause was then transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma. Upon concluding there is evidence insufficient to support a conviction on a greater offense. Is such a procedure permissible only where the defendant was indicted and the jury instructed on the lesser included offense? <p> (3) Are there other conditions that should affect the availability of such a procedure?<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/96-8046.wpd.html">PARKHURST V. SHILLINGER<BR></A><BR> We affirm.(1) Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Petitioner argued that (1) the vehicle in which he was riding after the crimes were committed was stopped by police without probable cause and the evidence seized therein should have been suppressed. (2) the consent to search the vehicle was obtained illegally and the evidence should also have been suppressed on that basis. These claims were rejected. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed. Which provide a remedy for felons in custody in state penal institutions who believe they are unconstitutionally confined. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. his right to remain silent. Claiming that the state trial court lost jurisdiction to try him because he was insane at the time the crimes were committed.(2) After the district court denied the petition because the claim was not cognizable under the Wyoming habeas system. This was the first time that petitioner raised in a state forum the issue he now seeks to have reviewed in federal court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTE1MjNfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-1523_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bumagin was involved in a scheme to defraud a jeweler and pled guilty to conspiring to possess and pass a counterfeit instrument to defraud a jeweler. We conclude that the district court did not err in so finding because: (i) Bumagin's stipulation was knowing and voluntary. (ii) while the district court was not bound by the stipulation. Its finding based on the stipulation was not plain error. affirm. Was (i) to ask the victim to bring jewelry to a hotel room at the Waldorf Astoria in New York. Execution of the scheme was set for All four participants had a planning meeting on the preceding day and then met on the 31st in a car outside the Waldorf. The CI was wearing a device that recorded both meetings. None of the extra stones or watches was included in Granik's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-7163a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Catherine E. With him on the brief were Arthur M. Circuit Judge: This appeal presents for the first time in this circuit the threshold question of when interlocu tory review of a class certification decision is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). We conclude that interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f) typically is appropriate in three circumstances: (1) when there is a death knell situation for either the plaintiff or defendant that is independent of the merits of the underlying claims. Coupled with a class certification decision by the district court that is questionable. That is likely to evade end of the case review. (3) when the district court's class certifi cation decision is manifestly erroneous. I. The class action now pending in the district court was preceded by two lawsuits brought by the FTC and several States' Attorneys General against Mylan that were ultimately consolidated and ended in a settlement. Which argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdic tion because the FTC was not authorized to seek either monetary relief or a permanent injunction in an antitrust case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTIyNDIgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-2242%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioners were each sentenced as persistent felony offenders under N.Y. (2) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1108.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rhoads</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. This case requires us to determine whether an application for state post conviction relief was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTIyNDJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2242_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioners were each sentenced as persistent felony offenders under N.Y. (2) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-7073.htm">97-7073 -- GASSAWAY V. CODY -- 12/15/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Billy Ray Gassaway. Gassaway was convicted in Oklahoma of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Gassaway was unsuccessful in his direct appeal and in his state court petition for post conviction relief. Gassaway then filed a <em>pro se</em> habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court alleging his first degree murder conviction was invalid due to the ineffective assistance of both his trial and appellate counsel. <p> The district court declined to address the merits of Mr. Determining the claim was procedurally barred. Concluding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not procedurally barred. <em>See Gassaway v. Gassaway continues to argue on appeal that both his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. Gassaway's claim for relief is related to a pistol holster he alleges was obtained in an illegal search and which he contends should have been suppressed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043457p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006) * This case was argued before the panel of Judges Sloviter. The panel was reconstituted on August 1. Judge Roth had the same briefs and record that were before the original panel and has read the transcript of the argument before the court on appeal. Who is currently serving a life sentence for second degree murder following his conviction by a jury in a Pennsylvania state court trial. Neither of which was admitted into evidence at trial. Who claimed to have witnessed the crime. Which was not tied by ballistics evidence to any of Wilson's gunshot wounds. Jones and Wright were indicted in December 1980 and all three were convicted of Wilson's murder following a jury trial. Wright's conviction was based largely on the testimony of two witnesses. The testimony of the two witnesses was consistent as to the following: they were in their apartment along with Maurice Wilson. Who was in her room. Esther Jones testified that an unnamed man came into the apartment to see Wilson while the crime was in progress. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTE1MTctcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1517-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jose Hernandez was arrested. The Hernandez was convicted on the robbery counts and was sentenced in December 1995. The motion was denied in September 1996. Azra Rayches Feldman was appointed appellate counsel for Hernandez. Ruling that the Batson claim was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/063496P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (DAC) seeking to have the judgment that DAC had obtained against it in state court set aside for lack of service and lack of personal jurisdiction. Summonses were served on Victor Lee. A judgment was entered against Skit and Uni Skit for $1. Skit argued that it did not have minimum contacts with the forum state and that it had not been made aware of the lawsuit until late 2004. The clerk refused to file it because the underlying motion to set aside the judgment appeared to have been untimely. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 1 Skit then filed this diversity action in federal district court seeking to have the state judgment against it declared null and void on the grounds that it was obtained without jurisdiction and without service of process. DAC argued that the federal action was barred by res judicata. Arguing that the state circuit court's decision was not entitled to preclusive effect because Skit had not had a full and fair opportunity to appeal it due to the clerk's refusal to file the record. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993047.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S 2D1.1 because the Government did not prove the substance involved in his criminal offenses was crack cocaine. The court order declared: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI4MDVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2805_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Jackson was convicted in New York Supreme Court. The District Court granted habeas relief on both offenses based on two separate claims: (1) Jackson was deprived of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by the trial court's refusal to allow the jury to consider a justification defense. (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when trial counsel cited inapposite case law to the court. 1997 2 Jackson was the superintendent of an apartment building at 110 Grove Street in Brooklyn. A group of family members and friends was drinking and playing cards in apartment 1B. Who was joined that evening by her sister in law. Who was Bernadette's brother and Mirna's husband. That Natalie Hall and her friends were inside apartment 2E. Drummond was a friend of Jackson's who lived in the building. There is some dispute over precisely what happened next. He later testified that he The medical examiner later determined that Brown's blood alcohol content was 0.21%. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6301.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> Petitioner James Patrick Malicoat was convicted in Grady County. Malicoat argues that: (1) his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to argue that a carving in the courtroom bearing the inscription </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1633.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Cohen were on brief. Was on brief. The second of two successive appeals from a certification of extraditability is within our jurisdiction. BACKGROUND The seeds of this appeal were sown on June 1. Charges were preferred. Howard was apprehended. Who is black. Together with an order of commitment.1 See 18 U.S.C. 3184. 1The magistrate found that all the basic prerequisites to extradition had been fulfilled in that the United States and the U.K. are parties to an extradition treaty. A criminal charge is pending against Howard in the U.K. The charged offense is an extraditable crime under the treaty. The person charged is the same person whom the government wants extradited. An arrest warrant is outstanding. None of these findings are contested on appeal. 3 Howard appealed. Murder was an extraditable offense. Instruments of ratification were exchanged on December 23. APPELLATE JURISDICTION The Supplementary Treaty stipulates that the trier's findings with regard to an article 3(a) defense are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-4731.opa.html">GOLDEN DOOR JEWELRY CREATIONS, INC. V. LLOYDS UNDERWRITERS NON-MARINE ASS'N<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Golden Door Jewelry Creations. Leach was not added as a loss payee.<p> On February 10. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. <i>Golden Door III. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. <i>Golden Door V. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. <p> In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. <em>See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <em>See</em> <em>id</em>. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1670p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Profession or trade </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032227p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal questions before us on this appeal are the scope of the exclusion from the Federal Arbitration Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-6244.htm">98-6244 -- BARNETT V. HARGETT -- 04/16/1999<BR></A><BR> That appellate counsel was ineffective for not pursuing such claims when Petitioner's direct appeal had been remanded to the state district court. That the record before the state district court was insufficient to support its finding that a competency hearing had occurred and a finding of competency had been entered. If a retrospective competency determination were feasible. So our review of its factual findings and legal conclusions is de novo. <u>See</u> <u>Miller v. Petitioner was convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill after former conviction of two or more felonies and sentenced upon the jury's recommendation to one hundred years imprisonment. <u>See</u> Aplt. The jury trial and sentencing were not continuous. Was determined to be incompetent thereafter. Was not sentenced until August 1989 when he regained competency. An appeal was taken and the judgment and sentence were affirmed. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 99. <p> The treatment records from the state hospital indicate a discharge diagnosis prior to trial of organic delusional syndrome and seizure disorder. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 96. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/01-4025.htm">01-4025 -- U.S. V. SPRING -- 10/05/2001<BR></A><BR> Spring was convicted of eleven counts of bank robbery and firearms offenses for his acquisition of a firearm and participation in a series of bank robberies in Utah and Colorado. <u>United States v. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9719.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Larry Darnell Williams was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Eric Joines. Eric Joines was robbed and shot in the back of his head at close range with a .20 gauge sawed off shotgun. At the time he was shot. Joines was working the late shift at the Service Distributors station on Highway 321 North in Gastonia. Joines died one week later. 1 Because Williams' petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on April 5. An unidentified fourth person were riding around together in Charlotte. Williams was convicted of both charges.2 In the bifurcated proceeding. That Joines' murder was part of a course of conduct in which Williams engaged and which included the commission by Williams of other crimes of violence against another person or persons. See North Carolina General Statutes 2 Williams' armed robbery conviction was set aside because the indictment identified Massey. (2) Williams was twenty four years old at the time of the murder. (6) Williams was considerate and loving to his mother and sisters. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-12390.man.html">DOW JONES & CO. V. KAYE (7/12/2001, NO. 00-12390)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0125p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Few aspects of our criminal justice system are as precious as the right to effective counsel and fair representation. Were charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Ballard and the other codefendants were involved in at least seven trips from Dallas. Marijuana was transported in addition to cocaine on at least two of these occasions. It is unclear. Whether Ballard was responsible for transporting marijuana. Ballard and Randolph were stopped by Texas Department of Public Safety Officers while driving in one of the two cars used during this trip. The two were arrested on drug charges. Ballard and Randolph were tried together on the conspiracy charge in December 1997. Because the verdict was delivered on a general verdict form. It did not distinguish what specific substances Ballard and Randolph were convicted of transporting. The district court judge then determined that Ballard was involved only in the distribution of cocaine. 3 the judge's determination resulted in Ballard receiving a higher sentence than she would have if she had distributed only marijuana. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954731.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Leach was not added as a loss payee. 1 Other companies also intervened but have been dismissed during the course of this litigation. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds Credini. The district court incorrectly computed the prejudgment interest from the date of loss rather than from the date that the payments were due. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-4056.htm">01-4056 -- TIMPANOGOS TRIBE V. CONWAY -- 04/15/2002<BR></A><BR> Are the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/993705P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael Collins who was convicted in Missouri of second degree robbery seeks federal habeas relief on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on his direct appeal when his counsel failed to raise an identification issue. Collins was charged with attempted kidnaping and second degree robbery after The Honorable Lawrence O. Presiding. 1 a woman was attacked outside a grocery store in Maplewood. She was approached by a man who put his arm around her and began asking questions. The man then pressed something he said was a knife against her back and forced her to walk across the street where he shoved her into a car. Collins was identified during trial by both the victim and Schuessler. Schuessler said he was not sure Collins was the man in the car. At trial Schuessler said he was sure about his identification of Collins because he had been able to see him from the side in the courtroom. He moved for a mistrial when it was finished. Finding that the state's failure to notify Collins of the pretrial identification was improper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041567p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate remedy for a violation of Brady v. 2 Maryland. Because we conclude that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only under exceptional circumstances not present here. We will affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. Jareem Fahie was shot while sitting in his mother's car. He was able to drive himself to the hospital where he was interviewed by a Virgin Islands police officer. Fahie informed the officer that he had dropped off two friends and was in the vicinity of a local hotel when a passenger from another car exited his car. When asked if the car parked outside the hospital was his. Fahie told the officer that it was. The officer arrested Fahie for possession of an unlicensed weapon. 3 Fahie was charged with possession of an unlicensed firearm (the sawed off shotgun) in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 2253(a). Detective David Monoson was called to testify as to the results of a test firing of the weapon. Defense counsel immediately objected and argued that the ATF Report was exculpatory. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6257.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (2) This matter is submitted on the briefs per the court's order. I. Background Brunton was indicted on 12 counts of mail and wire fraud after being caught running an on line auction scheme whereby he would offer up certain items for sale (e.g. A host of similar unconsummated deals were uncovered. It is clear from the briefs. That Brunton is challenging on appeal the court's calculation of the length of his sentence based on the amount of victim loss under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. His only concern is with the accuracy of the district court's calculation of amount. <hr> against him. Brunton promised not to appeal his sentence or how it was determined. While intended loss (that which would have resulted but for cancelled checks. Etc.) was $102. The district court determined that Brunton's sentencing range was 12Ä18 months. He would have been eligible for a lower guideline range than he received (8Ä14 months rather than 12Ä18 months). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0330n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Timothy Chaney was shot and killed outside 864 Philip Street in Detroit. Kelvin McCray was sitting in the front passenger's seat of that car. Orlando Scott was sitting in the back seat on the passenger's side. Metrish McCray's strongest claim is that the admission into evidence of an out of court statement by Scott violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. We have no basis to disturb the state court's conclusion that the error was harmless. He waived his claim that the admission of his allegedly involuntary confession violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self incrimination: the section of his appellate brief purportedly addressing that claim in fact discusses a distinct Fourth Amendment claim on which no certificate of appealability was issued. His claim that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel is procedurally defaulted: our precedent compels us to conclude that the state appellate courts rejected this claim without reaching the substance because McCray did not comply with a state procedural rule. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABB5449C604ABF178825729E007626A3/$file/9899003withgraphic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Note 3 (after the en banc court is chosen. The judges on the panel decide whether there will be oral argument). 3113 3114 COMER v. A three judge panel of our court remanded for the District Court to determine (1) whether Comer is competent to waive further proceedings and (2) whether he has chosen to do so voluntarily. The District Court found that Comer is competent and his decision to waive further proceedings voluntary. We review the District Court's finding that Comer is competent for clear error. That we review de novo the District Court's determination that Comer's decision to waive further proceedings is voluntary.1 Accordingly. 400 (1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1244.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
585 OPINION/ORDER
Anika Wikol is a child with autism who is eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). At issue in this case are her parents' attempts to secure reimbursement from Birmingham for Anika's educational program for the 1998 99 and 1999 2000 academic years. The Wikols have appealed what they regard as an inadequate award by the jury. We agree that the Wikols' appeal was untimely except for these latter items. I. BACKGROUND When Anika was approximately two and a half years old. That if a Lovaas or Lovaas style program were implemented. A local hearing officer was appointed in early 2000. Arguing that they were entitled to reimbursement from Birmingham for Anika's home based Lovaas program. Whether we have jurisdiction to hear the bulk of the issues raised in this appeal. Birmingham argues that we do not have such jurisdiction because the Wikols filed their notice of appeal late. Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides the generally applicable limitation that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed
585 OPINION/ORDER
The basic law underlying Dia's substantive claims is clear. He is unable or unwilling to return to his home country
585 OPINION/ORDER
National Union and Gulf sought to rescind insurance policies which they had issued and under which City Savings and the RTC were seeking coverage. National Union and Gulf were jurisdictionally barred from raising certain affirmative defenses to the RTC's counterclaim. We will affirm the district court's holding that under FIRREA the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over National Union and Gulf's declaratory judgment action. We will reverse the district court's holding that under FIRREA National Union and Gulf are barred from raising affirmative defenses to the counterclaim. Sent a letter to National Union and Gulf providing notice that City Federal might have suffered a loss covered by the insurance policies as a result of dishonest or fraudulent acts of City Federal employees. City Federal was declared insolvent by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (
585 ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO. V. HARDAWAY CO. (8/31/1998, NO. 97-2664)

We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. We affirm the judgment.

I.

A.

A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a

585 OPINION/ORDER
He also argues he is entitled to resentencing under United States v. The government contends Porter is precluded from raising either of these issues on appeal because he waived his appellate rights. The manner in which the sentence was determined. The manner in which the sentence was determined. Finding it had a factual basis and was entered into voluntarily by Porter with full knowledge of his legal rights and the consequences of the plea. Told the court that Porter wished to withdraw his guilty plea and to have new counsel appointed. Concluded there was no legal basis for withdrawal of the plea. Was appointed in May 2002. It wasn't my intent to have it go this long. I was just trying to get him to understand that it's frustrating for me to sit and not being able to talk to him or him not answering my letters or anything like that. . . . So that is the only thing that was a big problem with us coming back and forth to court and with me and my attorney. So that is the only thing that would cause any kind of problems and.
585 OPINION/ORDER
During which a group of MexicanAmericans were savagely beaten with metal flashlights. They were arrested and. Ultimately all criminal charges against them were dismissed. Believing that it has effectively lost its right to have a federal forum resolve (at a minimum) the federal claims. Montaño responds that the City is too late it should in his opinion have filed immediate appeals from the earlier (interlocutory) orders. We think there is a way. Festivities commemorating Mexican Independence Day (which actually falls on September 16) were taking place in the Little Village section of Chicago. Yesenia and David Mendez were among the celebrants when they were set upon by several officers of the City of Chicago Police Department. A significant amount of force was applied to Montaño. The arrestees were transported to the Tenth District police station. All of the plaintiffs were subjected to a variety of racial epithets and other verbal abuse. Ruiz were strip searched. Yesenia Mendez was later transferred to the Eleventh District station.
585 OPINION/ORDER
585 OPINION/ORDER
What they do contend is that their motion for an extension of time contained sufficient information to satisfy the requirements for a notice of appeal under Rule 3(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. An Order granting this Motion is tendered herewith. Which read in its entirety: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the plaintiffs Scott and Tammy Isert.
585 DOW JONES & CO. V. KAYE (7/12/2001, NO. 00-12390)

Circuit Judge:

585 OPINION/ORDER
A jury found Chemical Leaman was entitled to partial coverage under several policies. Therefore we conclude the district court's jury instructions were proper. We will affirm the district court's holdings on the pollution exclusion clause. We also conclude that the exclusion of certain evidence was within the sound discretion of the district court. The ponds were intended to purify rinsewater by filtering out contaminants as the water seeped into the soil. An Inspector with the New Jersey Division of Fish Game & Wildlife informed Chemical Leaman that its water treatment system was
585 OPINION/ORDER
Martin Link was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping. Murdering eleven year old Elissa Self Braun and was sentenced to death. Her body was found in a drift pile near the St. Link was arrested following a high speed chase. Which ended when Link crashed the stolen 1986 Ford Tempo he was driving into a utility pole. They were unable to determine conclusively whether Elissa died before her body was placed in the river. Murder included a jar of petroleum jelly found in the stolen car that Link was driving. Genetic testing of blood found within the jar indicated that it was consistent with Elissa's DNA. Sperm found within Elissa's body was determined to match Link's DNA. An expert testified that the probability of both of these genetic samples matching by random chance was less than one in three hundred thousand. Fibers found on the front passenger seat of the car appeared to match the sweater Elissa was wearing when she was kidnapped. Link had grown up in the area where Elissa was kidnapped and had lived near the area where her body was found.
585 99-7041 -- HARJO V. GIBSON -- 06/21/2000

Circuit Judges.

585 OPINION/ORDER
Chandler indicated to the officers that he was in the Steinberger's neighborhood checking on his ex girlfriend's house at the time Mr. Chandler called Officer Redstone and inquired whether the 2 police were going to arrest him. Chandler replied that they [the victims] were ordered out of the house. When the officers queried whether the victims might have resisted. Chandler speculated that the victims would not have resisted if the murderer placed a knife to the wife's throat. Chandler further stated that the victims were probably killed for the $150. Chandler would have known this information from an examination of the victims' bank account record. Chandler stated that if he were the officers. He again spoke to Officer Redstone and told him a story of two hit men who were the likely murderers. He posited that the victims were connected to the murder of a man named Gill. Their murders were a retaliation for their involvement with Gill's murder. Chandler also stated that he thought the murder weapon was discarded in a body of water.
585 OPINION/ORDER
Chandler indicated to the officers that he was in the Steinberger's neighborhood checking on his ex girlfriend's house at the time Mr. Chandler called Officer Redstone and inquired whether the police were going to arrest him. Chandler replied that they [the victims] were ordered out of the house. When the officers queried whether the victims might have resisted. Chandler speculated that the victims would not have resisted if the murderer placed a knife to the wife's throat. Chandler further stated that the victims were probably killed for the $150. Chandler would have known this information from an examination of the victims' bank account record. Chandler stated that if he were the officers. He again spoke to Officer Redstone and told him a story of two hit men who were the likely murderers. He posited that the victims were connected to the murder of a man named Gill. Their murders were a retaliation for their involvement with Gill's murder. Chandler also stated that he thought the murder weapon was discarded in a body of water.
585 ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO. V. HARDAWAY CO. (8/31/1998, NO. 97-2664)

We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. We affirm the judgment.

I.

A.

A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a

585 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court with instructions to reconsider our panel decision. We have determined that. I. Alvin Smith was convicted of one count of producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)1 and one count of possessing child pornography Section 2251(a) provides: Any person who employs. Shall be punished . . . if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed. If that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed. 2 and was sentenced to a total of 188 months in prison and 60 months of supervised release. The physical evidence used against Smith was discovered pursuant to a search warrant executed at Smith's mother's home in Tampa. Smith was incarcerated and the target of the investigation was his brother. Who lived at the residence and was suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. The focus of the warrant was drugs and drug paraphernalia.
585 OPINION/ORDER
We will dismiss the appeal. The facts are known to them. We will discuss only those facts pertinent to our conclusion. Rosado acknowledged to the District Court that the appellate waiver provision was an essential term of his plea agreement. The District Court thereafter determined that Rosado's plea was knowing and voluntary. Rosado was subject to a sentencing guideline range of 262 to 327 months imprisonment. We will uphold Rosado's waiver if he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights. We held that a criminal defendant who executed an appellate waiver as part of his guilty plea agreement was not entitled to resentencing in the wake of Booker. Was unanticipated. We rejected this argument on the basis that
585 OPINION/ORDER
The court imposed a sentence of one day in prison because Davis was 70 years old at the time of sentencing and because he had committed the underlying crimes 14 years earlier. Unable to conclude that this variance is reasonable. A business in which he was a part owner and 1 No. 05 3784 United States v. Is no evidence that this defendant now is an improved human being over what he was before this offense . . . .
585 97-5069 -- U.S. V. PRICE -- 10/06/1998

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendants Ward Price and Mark Anthony appeal pro se the district court's denial of their 28 U.S.C.

585 OPINION/ORDER
Was objectively unreasonable. Circuit Judge: The question presented here is whether the District Court improperly concluded under AEDPA review that the state court's application of Strickland v. Was objectively unreasonable for having rejected a Sixth Amendment challenge based on various alleged failures of trial counsel. Lynn was convicted for Murder in the Second Degree. Lynn is serving concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of twenty years to life and six years to twelve years. Bliden was the acting First Deputy Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility. The prison where Lynn is confined. Was objectively unreasonable. Was objectively reasonable in this case. That the application for a writ of habeas corpus should have been denied. Who [] do you think you are?
585 OPINION/ORDER
Sentenced him to 188 months (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
imprisonment followed by four years of supervised release. Background The parties are familiar with the facts in this case. The plea agreement contained the following waiver of appellate rights: [Defendant] know[s] that the possible penalty provided by law for a conviction of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) is a minimum of five (5) years. 000.00) fine. * * * [Defendant] know[s] [he] may appeal a sentence imposed under this plea of guilty in the following circumstances: (a) If the sentence was imposed in violation of law. (b) If the sentence was a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Or (3) If the sentence is greater than the Sentencing Guidelines as to fine or imprisonment. Term of supervised release or includes a more limiting condition of probation or supervised release than the maximum established by the guidelines and is greater than any sentence
specified in this agreement.
585 OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. The district court sentenced him (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Grand jury subpoenas were issued to multiple suppliers of pseudoephedrine. That transaction was captured on video tape. A written plea agreement was disclosed to the Court and acknowledged by the defendant. Golden acknowledged that he was waiving any and all appellate rights except for the right to challenge an upward departure of the sentencing guidelines. Golden's offense level was 38. That the Base Offense Level contained in the presentence report at paragraphs 40 and 41 is accurate. The defendant's objection is overruled.
585 OPINION/ORDER
Lines 5 6 the sentence is corrected to read
585 GOLDEN DOOR JEWELRY CREATIONS, INC. V. LLOYDS UNDERWRITERS NON-MARINE ASS'N

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Golden Door Jewelry Creations. Leach was not added as a loss payee.<p> On February 10. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. <i>Golden Door III. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. <i>Golden Door V. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-4342.man.html">CHANDLER V. MOORE (1/30/2001, NO. 99-4342)<BR></A><BR> Chandler indicated to the officers that he was in the Steinberger's neighborhood checking on his ex girlfriend's house at the time Mr. Chandler called Officer Redstone and inquired whether the police were going to arrest him. Chandler replied that they [the victims] were ordered out of the house. When the officers queried whether the victims might have resisted. Chandler speculated that the victims would not have resisted if the murderer placed a knife to the wife's throat. Chandler further stated that the victims were probably killed for the $150. Chandler would have known this information from an examination of the victims' bank account record. Chandler stated that if he were the officers. He again spoke to Officer Redstone and told him a story of two hit men who were the likely murderers. He posited that the victims were connected to the murder of a man named Gill. Their murders were a retaliation for their involvement with Gill's murder. Chandler also stated that he thought the murder weapon was discarded in a body of water. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032708P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jason Albert Becht was convicted of one count of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and one count of distribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). His conviction was affirmed on appeal. It is final. The conviction was based upon a statute that made criminal certain activities protected by the First Amendment. Which was discovered by law enforcement authorities. Becht was prosecuted for possession and distribution of child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTExMjItcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1122-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mosby contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of appellate counsel when. The state trial court ruled that Mosby lacked standing to challenge his warrantless arrest because he did not live in the house where he was arrested. Which was answered by Mosby's ten year old son. The child informed them that his father was upstairs. Mosby was placed under arrest. While Mosby was waiting in a police car outside the house. Noticed him in the car and asked an officer what was happening with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6374.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kokinda was convicted by a jury of trafficking in illegal drugs and possessing drug paraphernalia. He was stopped while driving through Oklahoma and a search of his rented sport utility vehicle revealed. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. (2) that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5436a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the briefs were Elaine D. The Final Rule Fails to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0183p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the district court did not err in calculating his advisory sentence under the guidelines and because the sentence is a reasonable one. Tennessee police officers noticed two people </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972664.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972664.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1749.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. Were on brief for appellant. Jr. and Dimitri & Dimitri were on brief for appellee. Rivera was convicted of carrying about a pound of cocaine from New York to Providence. She argues that the district court would have departed downward from the minimum thirty three month Guidelines prison term but for the court's view that it lacked the legal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5486D6D186C33868882570EB005C2F9E/$file/0370472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His convictions were affirmed by the Guam Supreme Court. This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. His petition was granted on June 18. The question now presented is whether the jurisdiction previously granted by § 1424 2. Existing at the time certiorari was granted. The briefs were filed. The case was argued and submitted. The Supreme Court was confronted with a similar question and held that when a jurisdictional statute under which an action had been properly filed was repealed. All such pending cases were to be dismissed. That holding was reinforced when cited with approval in a litigation setting that did not involve the jurisdiction of a court to decide a case. The court ruled on the effect of a statute upon an action that was pending in court on the date of enactment. The Landgraf case was dealing with a statute silent on the question of retroactivity. Ruled that unless retrospective effect is expressed by Congress. It will not be presumed. Because the question before us is the survival of jurisdiction to decide cases after that jurisdiction has been withdrawn. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1830.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief. Were on brief. That is. The results of the 1991 probe must have come as something of a shock. Rioux's final report specifically noted that there were no problems with Dantran's fringe benefit payment practices. The timing could not have been worse. The kingdom was lost). Wilkinson's final report pressed for debarment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-4342.man.html">CHANDLER V. MOORE (1/30/2001, NO. 99-4342)<BR></A><BR> Chandler indicated to the officers that he was in the Steinberger's neighborhood checking on his ex girlfriend's house at the time Mr. Chandler called Officer Redstone and inquired whether the police were going to arrest him. Chandler replied that they [the victims] were ordered out of the house. When the officers queried whether the victims might have resisted. Chandler speculated that the victims would not have resisted if the murderer placed a knife to the wife's throat. Chandler further stated that the victims were probably killed for the $150. Chandler would have known this information from an examination of the victims' bank account record. Chandler stated that if he were the officers. He again spoke to Officer Redstone and told him a story of two hit men who were the likely murderers. He posited that the victims were connected to the murder of a man named Gill. Their murders were a retaliation for their involvement with Gill's murder. Chandler also stated that he thought the murder weapon was discarded in a body of water. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-7117a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1408.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Rick Nemcik Cruz was on brief. Because the district court's findings are not sufficiently complete to justify a fee award. Because there is scant benefit in repastinating well spaded soil. We touch only on such matters as are directly relevant to the instant appeal. Appellants apparently concluded that the best defense was a good offense. That these efforts were born of a discriminatory animus. The panel stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EA3AAE13D4A0D04882570510053BE41/$file/0156367.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Gaston's petition was time barred under the one year statute of limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY5NDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6944-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the grant of partial summary judgment was neither a final 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 nor an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The plaintiffs sought relief on four theories: (1) that Union Carbide was a direct participant and joint tortfeasor in the activities that resulted in the pollution. After this appeal was heard on November 15. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/053108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peltz is the Chapter 11 plan administrator for the debtor. Peltz asserts that the bankruptcy court was correct in ruling that the payment was preferential because it was made on account of an antecedent debt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4223.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that the attorneys' acts were willful and wanton. Clair County was liable for the wrongful acts of Trentman and Lopinot under 745 ILCS 10/9 102. Vincent Lopinot was Trentman's supervising attorney. Who later was deemed a suspect in Cardenas' murder. Had a 1 (...continued) that it was not an entity capable of being sued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). The attorney would have uncovered evidence supporting the view that Anderson. Woidtke was convicted of Cardenas' murder and sentenced to a term of forty five years in prison. Woidtke was retried for Cardenas' murder. He was found not guilty. Alleging that they were negligent in representing him. Woidtke's trial that would have established his innocence. Knowing there was a conflict of interest. Clair County also contended that it could not be held liable under 745 ILCS 10/2 109 for the acts or omissions of its employees (Trentman and Lopinot) if the employees themselves were 2 not held liable. Woidtke's complaint on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0610n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will REVERSE the district court's order in part and AFFIRM in part. I. Nicklaus Atria was a pre med student at Vanderbilt University when the events giving rise to this litigation occurred. Atria was enrolled in an Organic Chemistry class taught by Professor B.A. Professor Hess's system for returning the graded tests is ­ at least in our experience ­ unusual. Which were conspicuously marked with their names and social security numbers. Professor Hess testified that he did not know the names of most students and had no way of knowing whether students were picking up their own tests. Atria was absent from class on Friday. The day that the graded answer sheets were put out for general retrieval. Professor Hess allows any student who believes that an answer on his test was incorrectly marked as wrong to resubmit the answer sheet for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-5102.htm">01-5102 -- U.S. V. HUGHES -- 05/15/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendants T. The application for a certificate of appealability (COA) is denied and this appeal is dismissed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4309DA3C849926C88257258000C6073/$file/0570672.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IJ concluded that Morales was removable both because she was an alien present in the United States without admission or parole and because she had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude communication with a minor for immoral purposes under section 9.68A.090 of the Revised Code of Washington. The IJ further found Morales would have been eligible for asylum but for her conviction. Which the IJ determined was a particularly serious crime. Holding that Morales had not shown it was more likely than not she would be tortured if she were returned to Mexico. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's finding that Morales was removable because Morales had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of Morales's applications for asylum. The IJ determined that Morales's conviction was for a particularly serious crime. I. BACKGROUND Nancy Arabillas Morales was born Juan Manuel Arabillas Morales on June 24. She began using the name Nancy when she was fourteen years old because she always felt that she was more of a female than a male. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-6179.htm">97-6179 -- CASTRO V. WARD -- 03/02/1998<BR></A><BR> Is withdrawn. The court's corrected opinion is filed herewith. Castro was arrested for the armed robbery and felony murder of Rhonda Pappan in Ponca City. He was placed in the Kay County jail. Castro was convicted and sentenced to death in this case. The basic facts of the crime are the following: Mr. Castro with the Cox murder was filed in Noble County. Castro was found guilty in Kay County of the armed robbery and felony murder of Ms. Castro was arraigned on the murder and theft charges involving Ms. The statutory aggravator supporting the death sentence was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3670_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The suit was removed to federal court by one of those directors. Removal was barred by the forum defendant rule. That § 1441(b) only precluded removal when a resident of the forum state actually is joined and served as a defendant at the time of removal. The district court recognized that the language of § 1441(b) only prohibits removal in diversity cases when one of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007439.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that the district court erred in holding that the statute of limitations was not tolled during the period between stages of state collateral review. We hold that the statute of limitations was tolled for some but not necessarily all of the period in question. That the record does not contain sufficient information to determine whether Allen's petition was timely. The motion was denied the following month. The State argued that the one year statute of limitations established by 28 Allen's petition was dated March 9. This opinion will refer to all documents as having been filed on the dates they were received by the courts to which they were submitted. 1 ALLEN v. This section further provides for tolling of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3634_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Republic and NATC are competing distributors of rollyour own cigarette papers. Stating that Republic was violating NATC's patent and trademark rights and that. NATC wrote a letter to all of its customers (many were also Republic customers). It also sought a declaratory judgment that its marketing programs were lawful. NATC responded that the assets were in fact encumbered and that it could only post $3 million from a revolving line of credit. 000 was a one time. Arguing that (1) NATC was not entitled to costs incurred prior to appeal because it was not the prevailing party in the district court. It said that Rule No. 05 3634 5 39(e) allowed it to award costs during appeal and that Local Rule 54.1(c) allowed it to award costs before and after appeal.2 It also rejected Republic's contention that NATC's costs in securing the judgment were unreasonably high. It found credible Brunson's assertion that NATC attempted to obtain a bond from a bonding company but was unable to do so because it had no unencumbered assets to pledge as collateral. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/003550.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Joint Venture Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2000/981744.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by Dean Campbell. S 2254(d) was denied by the District Court. Campbell contends that the state courts failed to make a finding of historical fact as to whether trial counsel informed him that it was his choice to testify on his own behalf. It is impossible to address the merits of his substantive claim. While they were not artfully expressed. Which is binding under the federal habeas statute 2 and Supreme Court precedent. The state appellate court's conclusion that Campbell's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance or interfere with his right to testify in warning Campbell that testifying on his own behalf might be unwise was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B1F8160B8A5996D88256D13006C1770/$file/0115345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Koerner has pursued only his claim that he was denied a direct appeal from his original conviction. Finding that our analysis is controlled by a recent en banc decision of this Court. Holding that the Nevada Supreme Court did not rely on an independent and adequate state ground and that Koerner's denial of direct appeal claim is therefore not procedurally defaulted. ACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Kelly Koerner is guilty of a brutal murder. He found his ex wife as she was leaving her psychotherapist appointment and shot her five times in the head. Is that I was in Washoe County on that date. I was the one that held the gun. Koerner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole the maximum sentence available. The appeal was dismissed as untimely. He stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4179.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Final Judgment was entered on June 14. Who was their supervisor at the Cedar City office of DWS. Initial allegations of sexual harassment were made against Johnson in 2001. New allegations of harassment by Johnson were made by Plaintiff Stephens relating to his following her from the DWS office to the post office. The two actions were consolidated by the trial court on January 29. The motion asserted that the claims of all three plaintiffs were subject to dismissal because they did not file their charges of discrimination within 300 days of the last alleged act of sexual harassment (id. at 1 2). The motion also argued that the plaintiff was not promoted for a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. The motion also asserted that Plaintiff Stephens' Third and Fourth Causes of Action were barred by sovereign immunity (id.). Therefore were barred (Order 6 11). They were not sufficient by themselves to constitute hostile work environment claims. The Court further ruled that the alleged acts that occurred within the 300 day period did not have a sufficient </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0318p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were leaving the shop. The evidence adduced at trial indicates that as Carter and Kincaid were leaving the shop. Carter and Kincaid were soon picked up by a motorist who took 1 No. 03 1563 Munson v. Which was registered to one </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-6179.htm">97-6179 -- CASTRO V. WARD -- 02/18/1998<BR></A><BR> Castro was arrested for the armed robbery and felony murder of Rhonda Pappan in Ponca City. He was placed in the Kay County jail. Castro was convicted and sentenced to death in this case. The basic facts of the crime are the following: Mr. Castro with the Cox murder was filed in Noble County. Castro was found guilty in Kay County of the armed robbery and felony murder of Ms. Castro was arraigned on the murder and theft charges involving Ms. The statutory aggravator supporting the death sentence was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1290.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that a non appealability clause in an arbitration agreement that forecloses judicial review of an arbitration award beyond the district court level is enforceable. What was unique about this technology is that it was designed to remove the contaminants in situ. Or while the water was still underground. Gorelick was the sole shareholder and manager of NoVOCs. Two aspects of the stock purchase agreement are particularly relevant to this appeal: First. MACTEC was unsure as to whether the use of the UBV technology would trigger the $3000 per well royalty obligation to Gorelick it had assumed in the stock purchase agreement. The parties eventually agreed in writing to reduce Gorelick's royalty payment to $1500 for each </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4100.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that his state conviction for sexual assault and attempted armed robbery was procured in violation of the Constitution. He also argues that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecution. Pruitt was sentenced to natural life imprisonment. Arguing that prosecutors were impermissibly exercising the challenges to strike prospective jurors based on their gender. Should Sims have then failed to appear at trial. She would have forfeited the $5. 000 and would fur No. 02 4100 3 ther have been subject to arrest and imprisonment. Neither the existence of the agreement nor the appearance bond was disclosed to Pruitt. Challenging the legality of his conviction on four grounds: (1) that the evidence against him was insufficient to support his conviction. (2) that he was denied the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. (4) that the prosecution failed to disclose that the key witness against him was compelled to appear at his trial by a $5. The court held that the Illinois Appellate Court's decision was not contrary to federal law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6372.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000). Petitioner's attempts were unsuccessful. Law enforcement officers were able to arrest and charge Petitioner several weeks later. Following a jury trial during which Petitioner was represented by counsel. Petitioner was convicted in Oklahoma state court of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree After Former Conviction of a Felony and sentenced to twenty years in prison. Petitioner then filed an application for post conviction relief in Oklahoma state court in which he asserted that (1) he was denied effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding because Petitioner should have been charged with second degree <hr> attempted robbery. (3) Petitioner's sentence was excessive because it exceeded the statutory punishment for second degree attempted robbery. The OCCA specifically found that all of the claims asserted in the post conviction appeal except the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were procedurally barred as a result of Petitioner's failure to raise these claims in his direct appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3368.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Clyde Apperson and William Pickard were convicted. Apperson was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. Pickard was sentenced to life imprisonment. Skinner told the DEA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0213p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams testified that she was awakened by the sound of gunshots at approximately 3:45 in the morning on September 8. Williams testified that Clinkscale then summoned another man ­ apparently his As the facts of this case have been com prehensively recited in previous court decisions. We will highlight only those facts that are dispo sitive of the issues presented in this appe al. 1 The Ho norable D avid W . Williams was able to call 911. Maintained that he could not have committed the crimes as charged because he had spent the entire night of September 7 and morning of September 8 in Youngstown. Where he was living. Attorneys Rogers and Benton were appointed to represent Clinkscale at trial. Have an alibi for which significant corroboration existed. 1998 ­ only a few days before the jury was empaneled ­ when they gave </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514254.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case was brought as a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. While the case was being prepared for trial. The Dealers' appeal is No. 05 14543. Westgate's appeal is No. 05 15152. This is the second time the Dealers' breach of contract claims against Ford have been before this court. On the Dealers' petition for a writ of The petition for writ of mandamus is No. 05 14254. We have consolidated this petition with the appeals designated in note 2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/94-8204.opa.html">MILLS V. FREEMAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mills v. The Court's subsequent order in <i>Brown II</i> that all segregated schools were to desegregate with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001586.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P. 23(f) is whether plaintiffs' securities fraud claims satisfy the requirements for class certification under Fed. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. P. 23 to provide for interlocutory appeal by permission of the court of appeals.1 Recognizing that denying or granting class certification is often the defining moment in class actions (for it may sound the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/993942P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 whether Hanes's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in preparation for trial.3 We affirm. Hanes admitted to being at the apartment at the time of the This is our characterization of the issue. The right to appeal is governed by the COA requirements found at 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Whether the habeas petition was filed in the district court pre or post AEDPA. Claimed that Sprouse committed the murder while Hanes was waiting outside the front door to discuss a business deal with Barlow and that he did not know what Sprouse used to kill Barlow. The key evidence against Hanes was police testimony that he told police that Energine was used to kill Barlow. 4 and that only after Hanes provided this information were the police able to determine the exact cause of death. Because Hanes's habeas petition was filed in 1995 before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This appeal is subject to pre AEDPA standards of review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0295p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cage was indicted on June 30. Was sentenced to 30 months in prison. Her case was remanded for resentencing consistent with Booker. After she was indicted but before she was sentenced for those offenses. The total loss attributable to her conduct was $108. Cage was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 3147(1). Cage's sentencing hearing was held on February 1. The district court recognized </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/94-8204.opa.html">MILLS V. FREEMAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mills v. The Court's subsequent order in <i>Brown II</i> that all segregated schools were to desegregate with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0861p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants have appealed the denial of their motions to dismiss on absolute and qualified immunity grounds. These appeals were first heard by a panel of this court. Which was bound by Prisco v. In that case it was held that a defendant may not appeal the denial of a claim of qualified immunity under the collateral order doctrine if the defendant would nevertheless be required to go to trial on a claim for injunctive relief. When the panel opinion was circulated to the full court before publication. The issues addressed in the remainder of this opinion have been considered by the panel only. We are called upon to decide whether the members of the County Council are entitled to immunity from suit for their actions of enacting two ordinances which down zoned Acierno's commercial property. We conclude that both the present and former members of the County Council are immune from suit because the actions they took with respect to Acierno's commercial property were either substantively and procedurally legislative in nature. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0804p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that such a transfer order is subject to pretrial appeal under the collateral order doctrine. A juvenile delinquency complaint was filed against A.M. Who was then 16 years old. Would have constituted the felonies of first degree rape. We will first explain why we have jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. [fn2] we have jurisdiction over all </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1414p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI4MDktcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2809-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Ronald Wells is an inmate in the Green Haven Correctional Facility. Magistrate Judge) granted Wells's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his appointed counsel abandoned at trial a theory that someone else ­ Richie Roman ­ committed the crime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/023278p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue presented by this appeal is whether this Court has the authority to reinstate a grant of voluntary departure and extend the departure date previously ordered by an Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032541p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We similarly conclude that we do not have appellate jurisdiction under the provisions for appellate review of certain interlocutory orders found in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and (3). Which we will dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The arbitration has been Because this is an in rem action. The King A itself is the defendant with King David merely acting on its behalf. Adopted a `personification' theory in which the vessel itself is a party and judgments are entered against her without the necessity of securing jurisdiction over the owner. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1771p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Government of the Virgin Islands appeals from the decision of the District Court of the Virgin Islands Appellate Division holding that the Information charging Roy Moolenaar with Burglary in the Second Degree was insufficient and reversing Moolenaar's conviction. Moolenaar was charged in a one count Information with Burglary in the Second Degree. In which there was present a human being. Which was occupied at the time of the incident by Altagracia Hoheb. Hoheb was awakened by her daughter. Hoheb's keys were found in Moolenaar's jacket pocket. Who testified that he was with Moolenaar on the night in question and that they were both approached by a car. Which is a requisite to Burglary in the Second Degree. He also contended that the Information was insufficient because it stated that the intent of the breaking and entering was to commit theft. Whereas theft is not a specified crime in the Virgin Islands. Which is a crime in the Virgin Islands. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1807p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or early termination may be specified in the lease but only at an amount which is reasonable in the light of the anticipated or actual harm caused by the delinquency. The disclosure requirements are contained in 12 C.F.R. S 213. 2 The thrust of Michelson's argument on appeal is that the district court misapplied the Colorado River doctrine because the federal and state actions involve different parties and are not truly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994786.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Several of which were allegedly used to launder drug money and provide bonds for members of the drug conspiracy after arrest. Alonzo Mackins and Ivey Walker were each found guilty of the drug and money laundering charges. They contend that the district court committed Apprendi error in using specific drug quantities to determine their sentences when no such quantities were charged in the indictment or found by the jury. Defendants' objections to certain sentencing enhancements on Apprendi grounds are meritless. Because these enhancements are based on facts that do not constitute elements of an offense and because they resulted in sentences within the statutory maximums. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013811.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals arise from the district court's final judgment resolving a series of cases that were filed after a passenger train of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043379p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider primarily the following issue of law: whether we may exercise appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of a motion for summary judgment on the basis that a statute of repose was inapplicable. We conclude that the District Court's order does not fall under the collateral order doctrine and will accordingly dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. That aircraft was subsequently purchased by Wendy and Michael Robinson. That claim is not at issue in this appeal. In its capacity as a manufacturer if the accident occurred 4 are entitled to bring their suit under an exception to the GARA statute of repose because Hartzell made several material (1) after the applicable limitation period beginning on (A) the date of delivery of the aircraft to its first purchaser or lessee. Or which was added to. Which is alleged to have caused such death. The purpose of that process is to ensure that the propeller has been designed and The specific exception at issue in this case is contained within section 2(b)(1) of the Act: (b) EXCEPTIONS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIyOTctcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2297-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitioner challenges his conviction on the grounds that the petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the state trial court's modified Allen charge to the deadlocked jury. On the grounds that the petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court's modified Allen charge to the deadlocked jury. Was convicted of robbery in the first degree following a jury trial in the New York State Supreme Court. Spears was 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 charged with participating in an armed robbery along with his co defendant. Which stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006 * This case was originally argued on October 25. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/066024P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bankruptcy Judge This is an appeal of Man Financial. Are pending. Holding that the Minnesota Lawsuit was subject to mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). Since the Minnesota Lawsuit is intertwined with the pending Bankruptcy Cases of Refco. Certain undisputed facts of the Bankruptcy Cases are set forth as background. The Debtors were engaged in the commodities futures and options clearing business. Which is due approximately August 31. The amount of that payment is to range from $67. Which is due on August 31. Although these accounts were subject to the Exclusivity Agreement. Cargill asserted that the Exclusivity Agreement could be enforced neither by Refco (because Cargill's accounts were no longer at Refco) nor by Man (because Cargill had objected to the assignment of the Exclusivity Agreement). The gravamen of its Complaint is that Man </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-7059a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief was Phyllis J. On the brief was Matthew G. Circuit Judge: Plaintiff's notice of appeal in this case was premature. Filed while claims were still pending against one of three defendants. No new notice of appeal was filed. Here the nonfinal decision would have been appealable if followed by entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Accordingly we conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction. As each phase of the project was completed. Outlaw was a very hands on owner. Explaining it was bound contractually only to J.B. Informing the court that the notice of appeal had been filed and stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/99-10598.opn.html">REYNOLDS V. GOLDEN CORRAL CORP. (6/6/2000, NO. 99-10598)<BR></A><BR> Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered. <U>See</U> Fed. The 30 day time limit begins to run when a final judgment is entered on a separate document pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58 and 79(a).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6086.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> Applicant Richard Allen Thornburg was convicted in Oklahoma state court on three counts of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The district court and a member of this court have each granted certificates of appealability (COA). All three were armed. Because he was not coming back. Had been shot in the foot and his forehead was bruised and bloody. He was interrupted when Kevin Smith <hr> arrived at Scott's house to retrieve his girlfriend's purse. The door was answered by Donnie Scott. Who was not home. Once they were inside Poteet's house. He told Poteet that he was going to shoot him. Thornburg then told Matheson that Matheson was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI5NDUtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2945-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that because our remand was strictly ministerial. The district court's decision on remand not to resentence Burrell is affirmed. Circuit Judge: The question presented by this appeal is whether defendant appellant Stanley Burrell's criminal judgment became final before the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. We must first determine how the finality of Burrell's criminal judgment was affected by our ruling on his previous appeal in which we affirmed his conviction and sentence on one count but remanded the case to the district court to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/99-10598.opn.html">REYNOLDS V. GOLDEN CORRAL CORP. (6/6/2000, NO. 99-10598)<BR></A><BR> Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered. <U>See</U> Fed. The 30 day time limit begins to run when a final judgment is entered on a separate document pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58 and 79(a).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7141a.html">CROCKER HOBART V. PIEDMONT AVIATION<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/005251.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an extremely complicated motor vehicle dealer franchise termination case marked by disputes over what is known in the industry as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2228.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was holding her with his left arm across her chest and right arm across her neck. Three issues have been certified for appeal to this court: 1) whether Martin was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of appellate counsel. 2) whether the above stated claims three through seven were procedurally defaulted. 3) whether Martin's claim regarding the denial of a continuance is non cognizable. Habeas relief is available only if the petitioner demonstrates that the state court's adjudication of his federal constitutional claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/00-13811.opn.html">NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312737.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Agreed that the policy was not intended to cover retail lessees of Ford. Was injured in an accident with an uninsured driver. Helen Hunter was similarly injured in an accident with an uninsured driver while driving a vehicle that she had leased from Ford. Ana and Jonathan Mackay were killed in an accident with an uninsured driver while the Mackays were traveling in a vehicle leased from Ford. Certain vehicles were leased from a Ford subsidiary. We refer to all vehicles as leased from Ford. 3 1 The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5354a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1324o.html">INTERACTIVE GIFT EXPRESS, INC V. COMPUSERVE INCORPORATED<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6174.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While it was pending the Supreme Court handed down Blakely v. Taylor argues his appeal is valid because one of the exceptions to his waiver of appellate rights applies—that he can appeal based on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051451np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We disagree with the finding that Holiday was procedurally barred from seeking federal habeas review of his ineffective assistance claims against appellate counsel. That he is not entitled to habeas relief or an evidentiary hearing thereon. Holiday was convicted of first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. He argued that trial counsel failed to: (1) object to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1838p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Waldorf suffered injuries rendering him a quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident in 1982 when he was 24 years old. Waldorf appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial on damages and the refusal of the district court to grant him an additur as he contends that the verdict was inadequate and against the weight of the evidence. That we do not have jurisdiction over Waldorf 's appeal. We hold that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and cross appeal and will affirm the district court's orders. 4 This appeal is the third occasion that this case has been before us during the over 13 years that it has been litigated in the federal courts. Waldorf was involved in a two car accident at the four way intersection of Monroe Avenue and North 14th Street in the Borough. He was a passenger in a van driven by Kenneth C. Was riding on a seat that was not bolted down. Instead was secured only by elastic straps. Waldorf was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Corporal Victor Smith of the Kenilworth Police Department discovered at approximately 11:00 p.m. that the red light was not working. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3835_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have substituted the new warden of the Pinckneyville Correctional Center where Julian is currently confined. He was looking down both barrels of a double barreled gun. The State mentioned that Julian was on supervised release for a previous armed robbery conviction. Sheehan was only half right about the holding of Apprendi. Julian proceeded to trial and was sentenced to forty year concurrent terms. After Julian was sentenced in the first trial. Julian should have received thirty years. Per charge. 2 Because Julian's two habeas cases were not consolidated in the district court. Although the records containing the pleadings are identical. They are not numbered identically. This opinion will refer only to the pleadings of the record on appeal of district court case number 05 1077. The transcripts of the evidentiary hearing are identical in all respects and. It was entered into the record under seal. Julian argued that his attorney was ineffective when he advised Julian that he could not receive more than a thirty year sentence because of limitations set forth in Apprendi. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1839p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration filed by Hudson United Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042975p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pennsylvania are immune from suits brought against them in their individual capacities relating to their decision to deny an application for a permit for a conditional use. We conclude that they are entitled 2 to absolute quasi judicial immunity. We will reverse the decision of the District Court. Are Salem Township and the three members of its Board of Supervisors ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-13811.opn.html">NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6090.htm">00-6090 -- BRYAN V. GIBSON -- 12/27/2001<BR></A><BR> The retrospective determination that he was competent to stand trial. After finding that Bryan had previously been convicted of a violent felony and was a continuing threat to society. Bryan is entitled to relief only if he can show that the state court's resolution of his claims was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4042.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wilken now appeals his sentence of 235 months' imprisonment on grounds that the district court incorrectly calculated the United States Sentencing Guidelines range (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/024352p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The precise definition of that requirement is important because the docketing of a judgment in correct form triggers the beginning of the time period within which an appeal must be filed. We have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of those rulings. The only ruling properly before us is Okonite's timely appeal from the District Court's more recent judgment awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees. We will vacate that judgment and remand for further proceedings. 2 and (4) referred Local 1992's application for attorneys' fees and costs to a Magistrate Judge to determine the total amount of fees and costs that was reasonable. The comprehensive opinion was accompanied by a separately captioned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2286.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Assistant United States Attorney were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/021739P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The facts of this case are fully set out in our prior opinion in Bear Stops' direct appeal. B.B. was born during this period. Bear Stops assumed that B.B. was his son. When they were no longer living with Bear Stops. Bear Stops was convicted of knowingly engaging in a sexual act with P.M. when P.M. was six years old (Count I). Knowingly engaging in a sexual act with B.B. when B.B. was approximately four years old (Count II). This evidence would have provided a potential alternative explanation for P.M.'s behavior. Which the government demonstrated was consistent with behavior frequently observed in sexually abused children. Which was the only physical evidence of abuse. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1551.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The Commonwealth's core contention is that the 1991 Civil Rights Act fails validly to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity insofar as the Act authorizes the imposition of compensatory damages in Title VII actions against the States (and against Puerto Rico. Which is considered the functional equivalent of a State for Eleventh Amendment purposes). One that falls beyond our purview.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4FC6A1CFE162083788256DA90052FAB8/$file/0156565.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Testified that she acted in self defense because at the time of the killing she feared that her life was in imminent danger. That the use of the terminology </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/00-6020.htm">00-6020 -- AL-MOSAWI V. GIBSON -- 11/29/2000<BR></A><BR> Although the precise motive is unclear. It appears the attacks were the culmination of petitioner's stormy relationships with Inaam and Mohammad. Oklahoma were the sponsor family. <p> Marital problems between Appellant and Inaam led Inaam. Who was pregnant at the time. Warden was called to the hospital at the insistence of a nurse. It is the mother's right to name her baby. <p> Officer Maule testified that she responded to a disturbance call at Deaconess Hospital in Oklahoma City. She was taken to Inaam's room where Mohammed and Fatima. Were present. Officer Maule testified that Inaam was in fear. Officer Maule then talked to security to determine a way to have Appellant leave the hospital. She suggested that they have the hospital secretary type up one of the little gift forms of a birth certificate with the name that Appellant demanded. Officer Maule was directed to a bench outside of the Emergency Room where Appellant was sitting. The permanent Victim Protection Order was granted on November 20. Inaam was present with Ms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-6302.htm">98-6302 -- LAFEVERS V. GIBSON -- 06/16/1999<BR></A><BR> LaFevers raises a number of discrete issues which we have considered in full. BACKGROUND</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Petitioner and his co defendant were convicted in state court of kidnapping and murdering eighty four year old Addie Hawley. Who was driving the car. Although there was evidence presented at trial that indicated that Hawley was raped. They drove the car a short distance away and also set it on fire. <p> Rescue personnel were called to the scene soon after the fires were set. She was still alive. Cannon were tried jointly in March of 1986. LaFevers was retried soon thereafter. The jury found the existence of three aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was especially heinous. (2) there was a probability that Mr. (3) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution. The court reasoned: <p> This Court is in receipt of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Order dated June 4. In pertinent part: <p> [t]his is a death penalty state habeas case with numerous claims of perceived error rising to constitutional dimension. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-6316.htm">00-6316 -- ELLIS V. SAFFLE -- 06/04/2001<BR></A><BR> Ellis was convicted in Oklahoma state court of grand larceny. (2) that his sentence was excessive. Was the lawful owner of the gun on the date of the crime. <u>Id.</u>. Was specifically addressed on direct appeal. Review of this issue is barred as <em>res judicata</em>. Could have been raised on direct appeal. Were not. Are waived. Petitioner's remaining claims are all part and parcel of his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. <p> <u>Id.</u>. Ellis' ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim and held that it was without merit. <u>Id.</u> at 4 5. <p> Mr. Ellis was not entitled to habeas relief on his substantive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim and was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. <u>Id.</u> at 12 14. We will address Mr. Ellis' claims that his due process rights were violated by the prosecutor's withholding of evidence (Claim Two) and that he had ineffective trial counsel (Claim Four) first. The OCCA held that it was barred from reviewing these claims on post conviction review according to Okla. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1440.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Dalila Argaez Wendlandt. Of counsel on the brief were Susan G.L. With him on the brief were Mark E. The court held Pall in contempt for violating the Mykrolis Corporation is now known as Entegris. We will continue to refer to the company herein as Mykrolis. 1 injunction but. Pall appeals the district court's finding that Pall was in contempt. BACKGROUND Plaintiff cross appellant Mykrolis and defendant appellant Pall are competitors in the industry of filtration systems for semiconductor manufacturing. Mykrolis is the assignee of the '770 and '907 patents. Pall withdrew that motion as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1596.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Appellant 1The rule was rewritten as part of the Sentencing Reform Act. Was further amended in 1991. It is settled that a criminal defendant cannot ground an appeal on the sentencing court's discretionary decision not to depart below the guideline sentencing range. No appeal will lie on behalf of the benefitted defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415363.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is before us for the second time. I The facts of this case have been extensively reported. Most relevant to the current appeal are these facts. Transamerica is a lessor of ocean cargo containers and related equipment. CAVN was responsible for insuring the equipment. Much of the lost equipment was never found. The age of several of the claims and the total lack of assistance insurers have received from C.A.V.N. in identifying the number of claims lodged with them. There was some ambiguity as to Transamerica's status under the various insurance contracts. Transamerica took the position that it was an additional assured. While Underwriters argued that it was only a loss payee. Concluding that Transamerica was an assured.1 Additionally. The district court This issue is important because the contracts contained a forum selection clause stating that they were to be interpreted according to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972160.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Maryland partnership in which Kenneth Neil was a general partner owned and operated the Holiday Inn for some time. The stated policy period was August 1. Which is defined to include: bodily injury . . . arising out of operations . . . but only if the bodily injury . . . occurs after such operations have been completed or abandoned and occurs away from premises owned by or rented to the Named Insured. This exclusion states: [T]he insurance provided in this Section of the Policy DOES NOT APPLY TO: a) The contamination of any environment by pollutants that are introduced at any time. It is hereby understood that the following meanings apply to various terms used in the foregoing: a. It is hereby understood and agreed that this Pollution Exclusion does not apply to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1966OPN2.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Russoniello</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2295.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to 65 months' imprisonment. Was convicted in 2002 of transporting illegal aliens. He was sentenced to 194 days' imprisonment. He was immediately deported. Sanchez Juarez was detained by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in August 2004 at a bus station and was found in possession of five fraudulent temporary permanent resident alien cards together with five Social Security cards. This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Mr. Once the agents made contact with the passengers they learned that all were illegal aliens and citizens from the Republic of Mexico. Sanchez Juarez was sentenced to 194 days' imprisonment time served for this offense. <hr> The PSR then applied a three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Sanchez Juarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3791.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. No. 00 3791 Holleman was one of four people charged with the murder of Robin Opfer in 1977. The district court found that Frank was chosen because he was familiar with the case and Holleman had filed a speedy trial motion. Frank was available to represent Holleman because he had been successful in persuading the prosecutor to dismiss the murder charges against Love. Frank had persuaded the prosecutor that Love was elsewhere (in South Bend) at the time that Holleman had said Love was shooting Opfer. Holleman was acquitted of first degree murder but he was convicted of felony murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. This outcome suggests that the jury was not persuaded by the efforts of the state to picture Holleman as the shooter instead of Love (whom Holleman had fingered as the shooter). That petition was denied. Jeffery Evans was assigned to be Holleman's new appellate counsel. 446 U.S. at 350 (holding that an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects defense counsel's performance is a violation of the Sixth Amendment). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/97-3355.man.html">SIMS V. SINGLETARY (9/22/1998, NO. 97-3355)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> A. <EM>FACTS </EM></P> <P> The facts are recited verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on direct review of Sims's conviction and sentence.</P> <P> Terry Melvin Sims was convicted for the first degree murder of George Pfeil. An off duty deputy sheriff who entered a pharmacy while it was being robbed by Sims and three other men. Were the state's chief witnesses. Pfeil was shot twice and Sims was wounded in the hip. The four men then departed the area.</P> <P> This account of the robbery and the shooting was confirmed by pharmacist Robert Duncan. He was stopped by Sims who took his wallet. Guggenheim said he then saw Sims shoot a man who was entering through the front door.</P> <P> The main theory of defense was mistaken identity. 923 24 (Fla.1983).</P> <P> B. <EM>PROCEDURAL HISTORY</EM></P> <P> Sims's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. <EM>Sims v. Sims raised numerous issues on direct appeal: (1) whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness when the trial court curtailed defense counsel's cross examination of Baldree. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1066.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gregory Bey's direct appeal languished in the Indiana state court system for nearly ten years before it was finally resolved. After waiting several minutes and when the employees were no longer able to hear the voices of the robbers. Their descriptions of the robbers' features were relatively consistent. Hampton met collectively with a police artist and provided a description that was subsequently used in the creation of composite sketches of the two robbers. The police received information that Gregory Bey might have been involved in the McDonald's robbery and Bible's murder. The record is clear that these photos were of poor quality and that no witness was able to positively identify the suspect from the photo display. As the face is largely shadowed. 1163.)1 Detective Elmer Combs was also in possession of another (color) photo of Gregory Bey (marked as State Exhibit 4. This photo was much clearer than the one Jackson had. The face in Combs' photo is clearly visible. Hair style) are clearly distinguishable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958111.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jerome Harris filed this civil rights action against the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-6276.htm">98-6276 -- PAYNE V. CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. -- 10/26/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This appeal arises out of the efforts of the liquidating trustee in the Chapter . The bankruptcy court determined that the transfers at issue were avoidable under 11 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958111.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jerome Harris filed this civil rights action against the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1276.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fisher & Boylan were on brief for appellant. Fortenbaugh & Young were on brief for appellee. Is obligated to indemnify it for environmental cleanup costs related to land and water contamination allegedly caused by Peterson/Puritan. Factual Background The ultimate issue in this case is whether Northbrook is obligated to indemnify CPC for environmental cleanup costs related to land and water contamination caused by Peterson/Puritan. CPC is a multinational packaging and manufacturing corporation headquartered in New Jersey. Its manufacturing facility is located in the town of Cumberland. The wells were closed later that year. That suit was settled in 1984 for $780. The settlement was paid by Northwestern National Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU4NzgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5878-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The precise issues presented are whether the remand order is appealable. Whether 2 the remand for noncompliance with the local rule was proper. We conclude that the remand order is appealable. That the remand order was erroneously issued. That the District Court's subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked. The Authority was created by legislative acts of New York. The Plaintiffs are Buffalo residents. Seeking to enjoin the Authority from taking any further action on an international Border Infrastructure Improvement Project ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E94647E8F0BCED088256CCD00602DF0/$file/0035897.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peterson claimed that he was denied his right to counsel under Article I. In its entirety: Failure of trial defense counsel to specifically advise a defendant that a letter he proposes to submit to the Court as a part of the sentencing process contains admissions of facts constituting irrefutable evidence of aggravating factors justifying an upward departure sentence is not adequate assistance of counsel. The term usually employed by Oregon courts in applying the right to counsel provision of the Oregon Constitution is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19973355.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS The facts are recited verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on direct review of Sims's conviction and sentence. Terry Melvin Sims was convicted for the first degree murder of George Pfeil. An off duty deputy sheriff who entered a pharmacy while it was being robbed by Sims and three other men. Were the state's chief witnesses. Pfeil was shot twice and Sims was wounded in the hip. This account of the robbery and the shooting was confirmed by pharmacist Robert Duncan. He was stopped by Sims who took his wallet. Guggenheim said he then saw Sims shoot a man who was entering through the front door. The main theory of defense was mistaken identity. B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Sims's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Sims raised numerous issues on direct appeal: (1) whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness when the trial court curtailed defense counsel's cross examination of Baldree. (6) whether Sims was improperly prevented from further questioning a juror in a post trial hearing about whether the jurors had considered Sims's failure to testify in reaching their verdict. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19973355.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS The facts are recited verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on direct review of Sims's conviction and sentence. Terry Melvin Sims was convicted for the first degree murder of George Pfeil. An off duty deputy sheriff who entered a pharmacy while it was being robbed by Sims and three other men. Were the state's chief witnesses. Pfeil was shot twice and Sims was wounded in the hip. This account of the robbery and the shooting was confirmed by pharmacist Robert Duncan. He was stopped by Sims who took 2 his wallet. Guggenheim said he then saw Sims shoot a man who was entering through the front door. The main theory of defense was mistaken identity. B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Sims's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Sims raised numerous issues on direct appeal: (1) whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness when the trial court curtailed defense counsel's cross examination of Baldree. (6) whether Sims was improperly prevented from further questioning a juror in a post trial hearing about whether the jurors had considered Sims's failure to testify in reaching their verdict. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2000/991572.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This matter is before this court on appeal from an order of June 9. Asserts that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Was involved in a two car accident on August 5. The underlying action still is pending in the district court leading the Bachers to urge that we dismiss the appeal. Allstate contends that it should not have to disclose the amount it paid to settle other cases. In this regard it points out that at least some of the settlements were confidential so that their disclosure would violate confidentiality agreements. It contends that disclosure of settlements is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is against public policy. Discovery orders are not final orders of the district court for purposes of obtaining appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. That we have jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine first recognized in Cohen v. 198 (3d Cir. 1989) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3084_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Faraji Omar Garth ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan97/95-8111.ma2.html">HARRIS V. BOARD OF ED.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. Jerome Harris filed this civil rights action against the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32F5365D480839FD88256E850076E8F0/$file/0210197.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Almost five years after he was first indicted. When the motions were denied. Which was controlled fifty percent each by Hickey and Tang. The receiver appointed in the SEC's action represented that the investors' total losses for Funds I and II were over $17.5 million.1 In February 2000. Including A further statement of Hickey's operations is contained in SEC v. A criminal case is generally not subject to appellate review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0002n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Linscott's claim was barred under the one year statute of limitations imposed by 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="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-6276a.htm">98-6276A -- PAYNE V. CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. -- 10/26/1999<BR></A><BR> The bankruptcy court case number is corrected to read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/801F08BB6B32441088256F3B00541A39/$file/0156367.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Gaston's petition was time barred under the one year statute of limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0033p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Linscott's claim was barred under the one year statute of limitations imposed by 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="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63C3B65888C5E57688256DF80056166C/$file/0256577.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pincay was ordered to elect one remedy or the other. This judgment was reversed on the basis of the federal statute of limitations. Judgment was entered in his favor on July 3. This lawyer was not in the office. Was there a proposed form of judgment submitted that we missed? A proposed judgment was served and filed on 10/11/01. We have it in our files. I'll have to check to see if we objected. Which was 7/3/02. 60 days would run us to 9/1. Which is a Sunday. September 2 is Labor Day. He </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0091p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner was convicted in Ohio state court of five counts of aggravated murder with two death penalty specifications and five counts of kidnapping. Facts as Recited by the Ohio Supreme Court Lundgren's Background Lundgren was born in Missouri and raised in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-10801.man.html">RINALDO V. CORBETT (7/13/2001, NO. 99-10801)<BR></A><BR> We will address only two issues: (1) our appellate jurisdiction. After concluding that we have appellate jurisdiction. We resolve Rinaldo's other claims in an unpublished appendix to this opinion.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/97-3355.man.html">SIMS V. SINGLETARY (9/22/1998, NO. 97-3355)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> A. <EM>FACTS </EM></P> <P> The facts are recited verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on direct review of Sims's conviction and sentence.</P> <P> Terry Melvin Sims was convicted for the first degree murder of George Pfeil. An off duty deputy sheriff who entered a pharmacy while it was being robbed by Sims and three other men. Were the state's chief witnesses. Pfeil was shot twice and Sims was wounded in the hip. The four men then departed the area.</P> <P> This account of the robbery and the shooting was confirmed by pharmacist Robert Duncan. He was stopped by Sims who took his wallet. Guggenheim said he then saw Sims shoot a man who was entering through the front door.</P> <P> The main theory of defense was mistaken identity. 923 24 (Fla.1983).</P> <P> B. <EM>PROCEDURAL HISTORY</EM></P> <P> Sims's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. <EM>Sims v. Sims raised numerous issues on direct appeal: (1) whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness when the trial court curtailed defense counsel's cross examination of Baldree. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1297.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inasmuch as the preemption question was clearly controlled by our earlier opinion in Palmer v. The error was harmless. Did Kotler's notice of appeal addressed to PMI and Liggett (No. 90 1400) preserve the preemption issue for appellate review?2 This is. The very issue which we previously 2It is crystal clear that plaintiff never intended to appeal the preemption ruling vis a vis ATC and she has not made any developed argument to the contrary. THE PREEMPTION ISSUE PMI and Liggett argue that the preemption issue is not properly before us because plaintiff failed to direct her notice of appeal to the district court's May. A A This point is governed by Fed. The rule's commands are jurisdictional and mandatory. Noncompliance with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1706.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to serve 110 years in prison. 1983 Lori Quackenbush was abducted at gunpoint when she left her place of work. Floyd was indicted for the rape of Quackenbush. Additional testimony against Floyd was presented by a polygraph examiner. That Deckard was lying. Floyd was convicted and sentenced to 110 years in prison. Floyd now complains that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during trial. The writ will not issue unless Floyd can show that the state court adjudication </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-6129.man.html">SUMMIT MED. ASSOCIATES V. PRYOR (7/15/1999, NO. 98-6129)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The central issue raised in this interlocutory appeal is whether Alabama's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars this suit in federal court against the Governor. Because Appellants have no enforcement authority over those specific provisions. Remand this case with instructions to the district court to dismiss Appellees' challenge to the private civil enforcement provision of the partial birth abortion statute.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellees are three corporations that own abortion clinics. If he is married to the woman who underwent the abortion. If the woman is a minor at the time of the procedure. Where the abortion </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20122.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of capital murder in Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. (2) he was denied his Eighth Amendment right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment. McWilliams and Adams were discussing stealing a car. Adams told McWilliams that he should have gotten the man. Who was covered in blood. Adams was stopped for speeding. A search of the car yielded several firearms one of which was the weapon used to kill Rodriguez. McWilliams was sentenced to death on September 9. His application is therefore subject to the AEDPA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071280np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Bertie Henry was convicted by the Virgin Islands Superior Court on two counts of unauthorized possession of an unlicensed firearm. Henry argues that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the Superior Court erred in admitting some evidence against him. We will affirm. Appellant Bertie Henry was standing next to his truck with a few other individuals when Officers Richard White and Rolston Friday. When White's and Friday's car was approximately 40 feet away from the group. He did not have authorization to possess guns. That the guns he Henry was actually tried and sentenced by the Territorial Court. We will refer to it as such throughout this opinion. 2 1 possessed were operable (as required by 14 V.I.C § 2253(a)) and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the government to introduce into evidence the two guns discovered by White and Friday in light of chain of custody problems. Agreed that the government had failed to offer evidence showing that one of the guns retrieved at the scene was operable (i.e. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan97/95-8111.ma2.html">HARRIS V. BOARD OF ED.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. Jerome Harris filed this civil rights action against the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/95a0980p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are. Paragraph 52 of the complaint stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-4097.htm">00-4097 -- STICHTING MAYFLOWER RECREATIONAL FONDS V. NEWPARK RESOURCES INC. -- 05/30/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs appeal the district court's award of attorney fees against defendant Consolidated Mayflower Mines. The district court entered an order acknowledging that the June 1992 judgment contained several clerical mistakes that were inconsistent with earlier rulings of the court.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/17309CB67017CAB5882573070083C240/$file/0515969.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The petition for panel rehearing is granted. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied as moot. 2006 and reported at 465 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) is withdrawn. Is replaced by the concurrently filed new opinion. Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit in favor of debtors. The only issue on appeal is whether the claim against the bankrupt corporation by Michael Racusin. The bankruptcy court found that the claim was a debt not subject to subordination. Said company will be paid a commission based on 5% of the purchase price. A subsequent agreement was entered into on November 11. While the initial public offering was pending. Leroy's brought suit against Racusin seeking a determination that the contract was unenforceable. Racusin appealed on the ground he was entitled to a jury trial. Holding that Racusin was entitled to a jury trial. Contending it was error for the district court to award specific performance when he requested only money damages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1361p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioners allege that they would not have pleaded nolo contendere if they had known that their pleas would prevent them from appealing a pre trial ruling. The state's intermediate appellate court found that the pleas were induced by faulty legal advice by trial counsel and that petitioners were entitled to new trials. We conclude that habeas corpus relief is appropriate. I. Factual Background Petitioners Larry Meggett and Anthony Dickerson were charged in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. While petitioners were handcuffed together in the courtroom awaiting selection of a jury. The trial judge told each defendant that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/032201p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge For over five years plaintiffa p p ellant Saudi Basic Indu stries Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C13A6195B292AC2288256D8E007D4857/$file/0135959.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Skurdal was arrested in the early morning hours of February 15. Skurdal is indigent. Bevolden was appointed as his trial counsel. Skurdal's brother is not a member of the bar of any state. Skurdal was charged by a federal grand jury with five counts of violating federal laws prohibiting the manufacture. Skurdal was both competent to represent himself and to stand trial. Asserting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/986013P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the appeal is properly before this court. 1998) were entered granting the plaintiff summary judgment in this adversary proceeding. While he did not use the official form and the caption of the notice of appeal was inaccurate in a number of respects. Hibbits appeal to the United States District Court. . . .1 Because Hibbits did not file any separate election to have his appeal heard by the district court. Hibbits has now filed a motion to transfer the appeal to the district court alleging that the appeal was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033634p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the Regulation a Permissible Interpretation of the Statute? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 VI. He argues that the BIA should have granted his motion to reopen because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Zheng argues that his previous attorney was ineffective because he failed to file an appellate brief with the BIA after an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application for asylum. Zheng argues that the BIA should have granted his 3 request to remand his case so that an IJ might consider his petitions for adjustment of status. He alleges that he is covered by the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992. The government responds that Zheng is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0814n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court plainly erred in sentencing Patino under the belief that the federal sentencing guidelines were mandatory. Francisco Patino and three codefendants were indicted in the Northern District of Ohio on a fifteen count indictment stemming from the illegal distribution of pseudoephedrine. Patino was arrested in the Northern District of California based on the charges in the indictment. Patino was then transported to the Northern District of Ohio and arraigned there. In the agreement both parties stipulated that the amount of methamphetamine attributable to the defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-6192.htm">01-6192 -- GAMBLE, SIMMONS & CO. V. KERR-MCGEE CORP. -- 07/22/2002<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> These consolidated appeals concern the district court's award of attorney's fees to appellee/cross appellant Gamble. Contending that the amount was too low and that it should have in addition been awarded fees for prior appeals relating to this case. <p> The attorney fee issue has been an enduring one in this case. Gamble Simmons also challenged the district court's finding that Kerr McGee was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6432a.htm">97-6432A -- ROSS V. WARD -- 01/12/1999<BR></A><BR> 1229 (10th Cir. 1997). <p> <em> </em> <p> A copy of the corrected page 16 is attached. <p> Sincerely. Sergeant Mahan was pronounced dead. <u>See</u> Tr. at 643. <p> At approximately 2:26 a.m. Ross and two other men were riding for having a defective taillight and unsafe windshield. <u>See</u> Tr. at 698 702. All three men were frisked. Ballistics tests showed that the bullets removed from Sergeant Mahan's head were fired from the Bauer pistol taken from Mr. Ross was convicted of first degree murder and robbery with firearms in the Roger Mills County District Court. Ross was sentenced to death for the murder conviction and to ninety nine years imprisonment for the robbery conviction. <p> In support of the death penalty. (2) the murder was especially henious. (3) the murder was committed to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest or prosecution. (5) the victim of the murder was a peace officer. <u>See</u> Trial Ct. Ross' convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. <u>See</u> <u>Ross v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6432.htm">97-6432 -- ROSS V. WARD -- 01/12/1999<BR></A><BR> Sergeant Mahan was pronounced dead. <u>See</u> Tr. at 643. <p> At approximately 2:26 a.m. Ross and two other men were riding for having a defective taillight and unsafe windshield. <u>See</u> Tr. at 698 702. All three men were frisked. Ballistics tests showed that the bullets removed from Sergeant Mahan's head were fired from the Bauer pistol taken from Mr. Ross was convicted of first degree murder and robbery with firearms in the Roger Mills County District Court. Ross was sentenced to death for the murder conviction and to ninety nine years imprisonment for the robbery conviction. <p> In support of the death penalty. (2) the murder was especially henious. (3) the murder was committed to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest or prosecution. (5) the victim of the murder was a peace officer. <u>See</u> Trial Ct. Ross' convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. <u>See</u> <u>Ross v. (2) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at both stages of the proceedings. (3) the aggravating circumstances used to support his death sentence were unconstitutionally interpreted and applied by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and the evidence was insufficient to support them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec96/94-1592.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. WILES<BR></A><BR> 1996 Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision: The footnotes should have been renumbered starting on page one of each of the dissents. Copies of the corrected dissents are attached for your convenience. Which was reheard en banc. Miniscribe was a Colorado based manufacturer of computer hard disk drives. Schleibaum is the former chief financial officer and vice president of Miniscribe. Schleibaum was charged in a two count criminal indictment with making false statements to the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Wiles is the former chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Miniscribe. Wiles was charged in a three count criminal indictment with making false statements to the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. We have consolidated our disposition of these appeals. Miniscribe was then a privately owned company manufacturing computer disk drives in the basement of its founder. Miniscribe was an overtly profitable. Whose common stock was traded on the NASDAQ. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0198p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Edward Jerome Harbison was convicted of first degree murder. Grand larceny and was sentenced to death. Certificates of appealability were granted to allow consideration of Harbison's claims relating to an alleged Brady violation. The denial of Harbison's petition is AFFIRMED. 1 No. 02 5392 Harbison v. Was away on vacation. Russell's body was found inside this apartment. Medical examiners determined that the cause of her death was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/011227P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 to her were nondischargeable. It is nonetheless plain that. Whatever else it may have done. The jury must have found for Ms. Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) a debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy if it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF688CBDDFDFA7FD88256FD300019A8F/$file/0355780o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The answers provided by the California Supreme Court to the certified questions will be followed by this court. All further proceedings in these cases are stayed pending final action by the California Supreme Court. These cases are withdrawn from submission until further notice from this court. CAPTION AND COUNSEL The captions of the cases are as follows:1 MARIA CANNATA. Defendants Appellees Although these appeals have not been consolidated. We have combined them for purposes of presenting a question for certification to the California Supreme Court. 1 GRISHAM v. Maria Cannata and Leslie Grisham are deemed the petitioners in this request because they appeal the district courts' rulings on these issues. B. The names and address of counsel for the parties are as follows: For Maria Cannata: Martin Louis Stanley. If the presumption of knowledge of tobacco's harms is not rebuttable. If the presumption is rebuttable. Where evidence will be considered. The decision of the California Supreme Court on the certified question will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991831.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While this petition was pending. Because Brown & Root was in essence seeking appellate review of a state court decision by a federal district court in violation of Rooker Feldman. Breckenridge and Booker alleged that they were terminated because of their race in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA). Code § 58 5 1 (Supp. 1999) (only final judgments of circuit courts are appealable to state supreme court). Va. 1995) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-10801.man.html">RINALDO V. CORBETT (7/13/2001, NO. 99-10801)<BR></A><BR> We will address only two issues: (1) our appellate jurisdiction. After concluding that we have appellate jurisdiction. We resolve Rinaldo's other claims in an unpublished appendix to this opinion.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041846p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rosa and Victor Ramos were tried jointly in the territorial court after being charged in a criminal information with committing murder in the first degree and with carrying or using a dangerous weapon during a crime of violence. 14 V.I. The following is a summary of the evidence supporting the charges at the defendants' joint trial largely drawn from the testimony of two seemingly disinterested eye witnesses.1 Rosa's car and a truck belonging to George Glasgow. Were parked on a street in Estate Profit. Rosa and Glasgow were in a field beside the vehicles. Was at 1 The facts in this case in support of Rosa's conviction are set forth in the district court opinion and the government's brief. With which he was hitting Glasgow. Glasgow was unable to regain his footing as Rosa continued beating him. Once Glasgow was unconscious. Rosa and Ramos were apprehended and charged with firstdegree murder and carrying a dangerous weapon during a crime of violence. There were discussions regarding the jury instructions beginning midway through the trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/988.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We refer to Respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216163.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gumson who are visually impaired and use the Internet through a special software program called a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/987282.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3137.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Jr. was convicted on May 9. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3306.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> James Bolden is not happy with the City of Topeka. He alleged discrimination based on race (he is African American) and as retaliation for protected speech. On the ground that those claims were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2041.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Lenehan & Iacopino were on consolidated brief. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This appeal arises out of unpardonable misconduct committed by a federal prosecutor who should have known better. Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution is memorialized in a recent opinion of this court. The facts pertaining to the misconduct are recounted in the opinion below. The prosecutors who controlled the case 2 were members of the Justice Department's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAF5EFDEB28154C688256FBE005C83E3/$file/0210197.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The opinion is amended as follows: (a) the paragraph in section V that begins </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/78E924CD7AD2050C882571FF0055D868/$file/0515969.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit in favor of debtors. The only issue on appeal is whether the claim against the bankrupt corporation by Michael Racusin. The bankruptcy court found that the claim was a debt not subject to subordination. Said company will be paid a commission based on 5% of the purchase price. A subsequent agreement was entered into on November 11. While the initial public offering was pending. Leroy's brought suit against Racusin seeking a determination that the contract was unenforceable. Racusin appealed on the ground he was entitled to a jury trial. Holding that Racusin was entitled to a jury trial. Contending it was error for the district court to award specific performance when he requested only money damages. The calculation was to be based on when Racusin could have legally begun selling his shares. As well as how many shares he likely would have been able to sell at what times. Racusin was awarded damages of $2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-6129.man.html">SUMMIT MED. ASSOCIATES V. PRYOR (7/15/1999, NO. 98-6129)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The central issue raised in this interlocutory appeal is whether Alabama's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars this suit in federal court against the Governor. Because Appellants have no enforcement authority over those specific provisions. Remand this case with instructions to the district court to dismiss Appellees' challenge to the private civil enforcement provision of the partial birth abortion statute.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellees are three corporations that own abortion clinics. If he is married to the woman who underwent the abortion. If the woman is a minor at the time of the procedure. Where the abortion </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-8092.htm">99-8092 -- ENGBERG V. STATE OF WYOMING -- 09/12/2001<BR></A><BR> Engberg's claims depends in part on whether a piece of evidence excluded from trial was sufficient to cast doubt upon the verdict. In late 1981 he was beset by financial difficulties: he had not drawn a paycheck in several weeks. The rent on the family's trailer was overdue. The family was regularly pawning household goods to meet immediate needs. A Wells Fargo armored car was robbed as guards picked up approximately $4. Were exiting the store when a man near the door said. A grocery checker who was leaving for the day. Who was Ms. Otto was taken to the police station. The hypnosis was reportedly unsuccessful. Otto was too upset to continue. Stating that he was tall (around 5'10 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/953093.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will not consider the qualified immunity defense in this posture. I. Plaintiff Appellee Suarez Corporation Industries (SCI) is an Ohio corporation that markets its goods through direct mail sweepstakes promotions and other contests. Elizabeth Pishner are West Virginia residents who have purchased goods from SCI or participated in its promotions. Plaintiffs Appellees are collectively referred to as SCI. McGraw is the Attorney General of West Virginia and Rodd is a Senior Assistant Attorney General. Several of SCI's marketing schemes were temporarily enjoined by the state courts. While that motion was pending. Are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The remaining claims are based on state law. The principal bases for these claims are that McGraw and Rodd accelerated enforcement proceedings against SCI after the newspaper ad. That McGraw and Rodd have disseminated derogatory information about other legal proceedings against SCI to the media and Dun & Bradstreet. The district court's only explanation was provided in a footnote: Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is not a model pleading in several respects. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4322_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because this is an appeal from a motion to dismiss. Was founded in the early 1990s. There are two operative complaints from which we draw the facts. Who was not a party to the Agreement. 2. Texcan Cables International did not receive any Anicom stock in the transaction. 3 4 No. 05 4322 the use of fictitious sales orders or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043078np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Akbar affirmed that he understood that his right to appeal was limited to the three instances enumerated in the Agreement. The District Judge declared that Akbar's plea was knowing and voluntary. His guideline range was reduced to 57 to 71 months. Which was within this range. Was fair. Defense counsel concluded that there were no non frivolous issues to appeal and filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4558_049.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Emerald wanted the bankruptcy court to enjoin the IGB from revoking its gaming license and to require the IGB to drop the disciplinary proceedings that were pending against Emerald. We have consolidated the appeals for decision because of the close factual relation between them. The court had held that the IGB was required to grant Emerald's 1999 application for renewal and relocation of its license. Emerald which was then still operating in East Dubuque applied for a license renewal. While the appeal was pending. The new section permitted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2364.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for the appellee</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043844p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The number of shares to be converted was controlled by a formula based on the current market value of the shares less a 17% discount for Berckeley. There is no dispute that Colkitt breached his end of the bargain. Asserts that he was justified in not complying with the Agreement because Berckeley made material misrepresentations in the Agreement 3 that violated federal securities laws and constituted common law fraud. We will affirm in part. Is the Chairman of the Board and principal shareholder of National Medical Financial Services Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/011036p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking relief from his state conviction on grounds his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. No appeal was taken from either the judgment of sentence or the trial court's ruling denying the counseled motion to withdraw the guilty plea. B. First Petition for Post Conviction Relief Under State Law Lewis is presently an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh where he is serving a 30 to 60 year sentence imposed by the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/98-9337.opn.html">KOCH V. RUGG (8/11/2000, NO. 98-9337)<BR></A><BR> Who is Jewish. Was a tenured political science professor at California State University in Los Angeles. She was employed as a part time or temporary professor in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/022350P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was caught by the girl's mother and subdued by other individuals until the police arrived. Blue Coat was suspected of forcibly raping his female cousin fifteen months prior to this incident. The government argues that this condition is not illegal and that Mr. That valid waivers of appellate rights are generally enforceable. The first step is to determine the waiver's scope. The Defendant may appeal any sentence which is a departure up from the guideline range and the United States may appeal any sentence which is a departure below the guideline range. The only appellate right he retained was the right to appeal a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6140.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams entered into an agreement whereby he (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) for using facilities and means of interstate commerce to persuade. For which a person could have been charged with a criminal offense. Williams and several others were recruiting minors as young as thirteen to work as prostitutes. The career offender enhancement applies where the offense at issue is a crime of violence and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/00-6181.htm">00-6181 -- HOOKER V. MULLIN -- 06/21/2002<BR></A><BR> We affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></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-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/97-3025a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal by a juvenile defendant from an order of the district court denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Because we hold that a prose cutor's certification of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/026023P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While this appeal was pending. ISSUES There are three issues before us. Sendecky's failure to keep adequate books and records was justified under the circumstances. Sendecky's appellate brief did contain a statement that is unbecoming to a member of the bar. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a bankruptcy court's conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.4 We will not. Overturn a bankruptcy court's factual We note that 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(B) provides that the court will not grant a debtor a discharge if the debtor </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19994176.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Drew argues first that his petition was not timebarred under the one year statute of limitations established by 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="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/16E8CBFCB4A62D5D88256A8F0057FEFA/$file/9930012.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paez and Berzon) concludes that the officers did not have probable cause to enter Johnson's property. Were not in hot pursuit when they searched the area outside the mushroom shed. That same majority also concludes that whether the search took 9190 place within the curtilage is a question that must be determined in the first instance by the district court. The decision of the district court is REVERSED. In an attempt to apprehend another person who was a misdemeanor suspect last seen 30 minutes previously and whose whereabouts were unknown. A search warrant was issued and Johnson was subsequently indicted on one count of man9191 ufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Determining that the search was justified under the hot pursuit and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The threejudge panel of this Court assumed that the shed was not in an open field but was part of the curtilage. REMAND the case to the district court for factual findings and conclusions on whether the shed was in an open field or part of the curtilage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19949392.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Alexander Edmund Williams was convicted by a jury in Richmond County. He was sentenced to death on August 29. This court will not review the following claims: (1) improper jury instructions under Georgia law. Her body was found in On the same evening that Aleta Bunch disappeared. Divided up the jewelry that she was wearing on the day she disappeared. Williams was arrested and was advised of his Miranda rights. Doug Flanagan was appointed to represent Williams. Collins was appointed trial counsel. Although the murder weapon was not recovered. One of Williams's friends took investigators to an area where Williams had shot his gun and there they recovered empty cartridge cases that were consistent with the bullets recovered from the victim's body. Richard Allen was appointed to represent Williams on appeal. Allen withdrew from the case and Williams's current counsel was appointed. Williams contends that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel was violated because O.L. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966615.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> New conceded that fictitious party practice is not permitted in federal court and. A writ of mandamus is the proper means by which a party may challenge a remand order. In determining that Counts I and II arose under the Alabama workers' compensation laws and thus were more appropriately heard in state court. New asserts that Thermtron is therefore not applicable to these facts. We cannot adjudicate those issues and do not address them. 4 DISCUSSION The only issue resolved in this opinion is whether this court is empowered with jurisdiction over this proceeding. We are convinced that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) precludes us from reviewing this remand order and. A district court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/012735P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The details of this horrific crime are discussed in State v. There was no plea bargain or agreement by the prosecutor not to recommend the death penalty. That Judge Randall had been drinking prior to the sentencing proceeding and that his plea was involuntary because his plea counsel had been ineffective. All of the judges in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit were recused and the Missouri Supreme Court appointed Special Judge Robert Dierker. The direct and post conviction appeals are heard together. Taylor's sentences were pronounced by Judge Randall in 1991 and by Judge H. Thus the consolidated post conviction/direct appeal procedure was still in effect. 2 3 saying more.4 Taylor filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he was no longer going to be sentenced by Judge Randall.5 His motion was denied. Taylor was not allowed to argue ineffective assistance of plea counsel in the second PCR motion because Judge Messina ruled that this issue had been raised and decided in Taylor's first PCR motion. Taylor and his plea counsel claim that one of the reasons they decided to have Taylor plead guilty was because the case was being heard by Judge Randall and they believed that Judge Randall was one of the few Missouri judges who might be lenient in sentencing Taylor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-2088.htm">97-2088 -- U.S. V. TALK -- 09/11/1998<BR></A><BR> His motion is based on <u>Koon v. We would have upheld them thus. Based as it is on an erroneous reversal of all downward departures entertained by the sentencing court. Would have to be vacated. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412676.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was not supported by the evidence. Rodriguez also contends for the first time on appeal that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by determining his offense level based on facts that were neither charged in his indictment nor proven to a jury. That contention is based on Blakely v. Which was extended to the federal sentencing guidelines recently in United States v. I. A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Rodriguez with the drug conspiracy and possession crimes we have described. Rodriguez himself was arrested on September 5. 000 tablets of MDMA from Miami to Tampa as part of a deal between Salgado and a buyer who was working for the government as a confidential informant. Two men in Miami who were supplying MDMA. Salgado further testified that in 2001 he was arrested for violating the terms of probation that had been imposed by a state court as a result of his previous convictions for dealing MDMA. Salgado was released from custody and traveled to Miami to meet with some MDMA suppliers. 3 Salgado was introduced to Vladimir Rodriguez. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E96F0E8AA60FBB788256EE600555F13/$file/0335217.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide whether we have jurisdiction to review an order of the district court that STEVENS v. Which was the sole basis for federal court jurisdiction. We conclude we lack appellate jurisdiction because the district court's remand order is unreviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Even if the amendment order is separable from the remand order. The amendment order is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nor is it reviewable under the collateral order exception. The appellant argues that the amendment order is separable from the remand order. That it is independently appealable. Therefore we have jurisdiction to consider the question whether the district court erred in permitting amendment of the complaint to add the non diverse parties. The appellant also contends we have jurisdiction to review the remand order. 10368 STEVENS v. BRINK'S HOME SECURITY II We need not decide whether the amendment order is separable from the remand order. Because even if it is. The amendment order is not appealable as a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982872P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jon Mills is an Arkansas inmate serving a life sentence for rape and first degree sexual abuse. We conclude that the one year limitations period was tolled while Mills attempted to appeal from the denial of state postconviction relief. Unless the time is extended by order of the trial court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/93-5253.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. TAMAYO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Was convicted for laundering money in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4203.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was denied on October 6. (3) his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to raise the severance and confrontation issues during trial. (4) his appellate counsel was (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> ineffective because he failed to raise the severance and confrontation issues on appeal. Agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/973067P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Wilson Chambers was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing Jerry Oestricker. We have reviewed the claims that have been certified as appealable. Were camped near the Meramec River in Arnold. The owner of the bar was summoned from home. The Turners were gone. Chambers asked about borrowing their boat and was told that the boat was drydocked. What happened next is the subject of considerable dispute. Once Chambers and Oestricker were outside. No one claims that the evidence was not sufficient to support this verdict. Three separate juries have found Chambers guilty of capital murder. His first conviction was reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court on the basis of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on self defense. Chambers's second conviction was affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Which was denied by the circuit court. His petition was denied by the District Court. Holding that Chambers's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to interview or call a witness who could 3 have testified in support of Chambers's theory of self defense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/99-5042.htm">99-5042 -- SHERRILL V. HARGETT -- 07/13/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Michael Rene Sherrill. (2) his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to object to that instruction. (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the instruction's constitutionality on direct appeal. The state courts further found that he was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel. <p> On October 17. It is well established that federal habeas review of claims defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule is barred </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY4OTMtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6893-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Grant of writ of habeas corpus is reversed. The case is remanded in part for further fact finding as to the Brady claim. 1 2 The Honorable Jane A. Was identified as a suspect in Balancio's murder and went into hiding for more than five years before finally surrendering to police on November 9. Second Department affirmed his conviction and leave to the New York Court of Appeals was denied. All of which he had raised in his direct appeal in state court: [P]etitioner was denied his constitutional rights and a fair trial (i) by the prosecutions [sic] suppression of Brady material that another individual had stabbed the victim. [and] (iii) that New York Penal Law § 125.25(2) (murder with depraved indifference) is unconstitutionally vague * * * . The more clearly intentional is the homicide. Sanchez[2] (where others were endangered). Argued for the first time that the evidence in his case was insufficient to support a conviction for depraved indifference murder. Petitioner argued that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412676ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. Rehearing en banc is DENIED. /s/ J. This Court has left intact our circuit law on Booker plain error as it is laid out by our panel decision in this case. Which was followed in Duncan and Curtis. Establishes that the use of extra verdict enhancements under the pre Booker mandatory guidelines scheme is Sixth Amendment error that is plain. Shelton adds to our circuit law the rule that while pre Booker sentencing free of any extra verdict enhancement is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment. It is statutory error under the remedial part of the Booker decision. The upshot of our four decisions is that the first two prongs of the four prong plain error test are met in all pre Booker sentencing cases.1 To that In United States v. (2) that is plain. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-7117c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Donald E. On the brief was Jeffrey E. Of counsel on the brief was Barton F. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Mark A. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. We hold that the regulation is valid and accordingly deny the petition for review. Some background on the administration of veterans benefits is helpful to understanding the operation of this regulation. Among the most important of benefit programs administered by the VA is the disability compensation program. An initial decision on benefits is rendered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2352A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Phillips</U> was on brief for appellant. <P> <U>Christopher S. Were on brief for appellees.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001915A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They were residents of Bethesda. David Hillman was the sole shareholder of Southern Management Corporation (SMC). Under which the corporation's profits pass through directly to its shareholders on a pro rata basis and are reported on each shareholder's individual federal income tax returns. 26 U.S.C. § 1366(a)(1)(A). 1 HILLMAN v. Which were involved in real estate rental activities.2 At all times relevant to the issues in this appeal. The general partner of each limited partnership was either David Hillman or an upper tier partnership or Subchapter S corporation in which he owned an interest. Joint venturers and partners are taxed under a passthrough taxation system. 26 U.S.C. § 701 04. Each joint venturer or partner is individually taxed on his distributive share of joint venture or partnership income. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We are presented with the following question of law: May the Hillmans legally deduct their passive management fee expenses from their related nonpassive management fee income for purposes of lowering their taxable income for taxable years 1993 and 1994? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F45AD78B33DB95D988256E5A00707BDC/$file/9935162.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzNzMtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-6373-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The subpoenas were issued by an arbitration panel presiding over an arbitral proceeding to which neither Stolt nor its former counsel is a party. We have previously stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/179194155D71984A88256D8600795C31/$file/0215826o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> EPA ORDER The parties's joint motion to enter the attached stipulated consent decree is GRANTED. Submission of this case is deferred pending further order of this court. Concurring: Judge Kleinfeld's dissent to the proposed consent decree is well reasoned and quite thorough. The issues he raises are significant and should be considered seriously by the parties as they continue their negotiations. There is certainly no assurance how the court would rule on the questions of first impression presented here nor is there any reason to believe that the Court would approve a final resolution that appeared on its face to be unfair or collusive or that failed to consider input from interested parties. In the present case however the Court referred the parties to mediation and the parties have gone to great efforts to resolve the issues without further litigation. Whether they will ultimately succeed is uncertain for their challenge is not easy. In my view a delay to afford the parties more time to address their differences in this very unique situation will not lead to significant prejudice to either side and should not be viewed as a new procedure that the Court is inclined to follow in the future. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/042348P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arjona Inda informed the court that his name as docketed was misspelled. No changes were made in the district court caption. 1 more of cocaine. BACKGROUND Arjona Inda was charged by indictment with involvement in a conspiracy to distribute large quantities of crack. Any issue involving a matter of law brought to the Court's attention at the time of sentencing in which the Court agrees further review is needed. United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. 3 4 cocaine was going to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19949392.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Alexander Edmund Williams was convicted by a jury in Richmond County. He was sentenced to death on August 29. Her body was found in a remote. Divided up the jewelry that she was wearing on the day she disappeared. Williams was arrested and was advised of his Miranda rights. Doug Flanagan was appointed to represent Williams. Collins was appointed trial counsel. This court will not review the following claims: (1) improper jury instructions under Georgia law. Although the murder weapon was not recovered. One of Williams's friends took investigators to an area where Williams had shot his gun and there they recovered empty cartridge cases that were consistent with the bullets recovered from the victim's body. Richard Allen was appointed to represent Williams on appeal. Allen withdrew from the case and Williams's current counsel was appointed. Williams contends that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel was violated because O.L. Because his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is procedurally complex. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1612.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kimberly Homan and Sheketoff & Homan were on brief for appellants Cerezo. With whom Monserrate Law Office was on brief for appellant Monserrate Matienzo. Were on brief for appellee. I BACKGROUND Appellants' clients were indicted in 1997 for theft of federal property and money laundering. Dealings between the prosecution and defense teams were acrimonious from the start. It entered a civility order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/98-9337.opn.html">NADINE S. KOCH, DR. V. EDWIN A. RUGG, DR. (8/11/2000, NO. 98-9337)<BR></A><BR> Who is Jewish. Was a tenured political science professor at California State University in Los Angeles. She was employed as a part time or temporary professor in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/99-4176.opn.html">DREW V. DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (7/18/2002, NO. 99-4176)<BR></A><BR> Drew argues first that his petition was not time barred under the one year statute of limitations established by 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="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974466.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/961541P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-7045.html">BARRERA V. GOBER<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1545.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant Toro Santiago.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0504n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hicks was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953784P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel were violated during his state court trial and appeal. Beverly Tate was shot and killed. As if Tate were trying to close the door but could not because someone was pushing it from the opposite side. struggling parties entered the apartment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-2150.htm">97-2150 -- ARMIJO V. WAGON MOUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS -- 10/28/1998<BR></A><BR> Armijo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-9337.opn.html">KOCH V. RUGG (8/11/2000, NO. 98-9337)<BR></A><BR> Who is Jewish. Was a tenured political science professor at California State University in Los Angeles. She was employed as a part time or temporary professor in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6349.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> George Ochoa was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in 1996. He now <hr> seeks to challenge his sentence on the basis that he is mentally retarded and hence ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. He contends he is entitled to proceed on this new claim for two reasons: (1) because his first habeas action has not been finally resolved. The claim is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1313.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. We are not persuaded by appellant's exhortations and. The remaining contraband was sold mainly to a codefendant. These purloined parts subsequently were shipped to MoGro's California headquarters and disposed of by one of the two methods we have described. Appellant and several confederates were spotted inside DEC's warehouse. Were eventually apprehended. Persons who are indicted together should be tried together. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1157o.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the petition were Edward M. With him on the response was Joseph R. ORDER A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellee. A response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellants. The petition for rehearing was referred to the panel that heard the appeal. Thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested. IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for panel rehearing is denied. Who was on the original panel. Participated only in decision on the petition for panel rehearing. * (2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. (3) The mandate of the court will issue on November 29. Rehearing this case en banc would have enabled us to reconsider Cybor's rule of de novo review for claim construction in light of our eight years of experience with its application. I have come to believe that reconsideration is appropriate and revision may be advisable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0350p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Appellant Alfred DiCenzi appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. DiCenzi was given the maximum sentence under Ohio law. Claims he was never informed by either the trial court or his attorney that Ohio affords those sentenced to a maximum sentence a non waivable right to a direct appeal of their sentences. This motion was denied by the Ohio appellate courts. The district court found that the petition was untimely. Because we find that the portion of the petition relating to the Ohio appellate courts' decisions was timely. Rose Page 2 conclusively whether DiCenzi was diligent during the time when he claims to have been unaware of his appeal rights. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on the vehicular homicide count and eighteen months on the vehicular assault count. Thus under Ohio law the sentencing judge was required to make certain specific factual findings and inform DiCenzi of his right to an appeal of his sentence despite his guilty plea. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6068.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is. Ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Spindler argues that under Oklahoma law his use of the firearm was legally justified. This court concludes that Spindler's appeal is within the scope of an enforceable appellate waiver and must be dismissed.(1) (1) The government's decision not to file a motion to enforce the appellate waiver and instead argue the issue in its opening brief does not preclude enforcement of the waiver. A waiver of the right to appeal will be enforced if (1) the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver. (2) the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Or (4) the waiver is otherwise unlawful and seriously affects the fairness. Or move to modify </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6D97F8B7B9FAE018825730D00567A4F/$file/0356601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Maintaining that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzNzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6373-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The subpoenas were issued by an arbitration panel presiding over an arbitral proceeding to which neither Stolt nor its former counsel is a party. We have previously stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-5152.htm">01-5152 -- DUBUC V. CHAMPION -- 05/22/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner appellant Brian Dale Dubuc. Dubuc's pleadings liberally because he is representing himself on appeal. <em>Haines v. Dubuc's notice of appeal was timely. The notice of appeal was filed past the thirty day deadline set by Fed. The fact that this appeal was filed before the extension of time was granted does not defeat appellate jurisdiction because the extension of time served to validate the prior notice of appeal. <em>Hinton v. We have appellate jurisdiction. <p> We also consider Mr. Which resulted in convictions that were later reversed on appeal. He has not stated why the record is necessary to prove his claims. The fact that the convictions were reversed erases the relevance of the trial record. Dubuc's motion to supplement the appellate record is denied. <p> <center> <u>CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0685n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David Fox was convicted by a jury in an Ohio state court for the murder of Montel Young in March of 2000. Young was shot in Fox's residence in connection with a home invasion by three armed men who had broken in to rob Fox. These claims are that Fox was allegedly denied (1) his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Only the key facts are recounted in this opinion. He brought the gun upstairs after he was done and stored it in his kitchen. While they were in the bar. Several patrons of the bar observed that Fox was in possession of a large amount of cash. Among them was a local prostitute. This encounter was interrupted. When knocking was heard at the back door and Fox got up to answer. The men were wielding pistols and at least one shotgun. The butt of which was used to beat Padovan unconscious. Fox had a difficult time seeing because he is permanently blind in his left eye. At least one shot was fired from outside the house. When he was first interviewed by police shortly after the shooting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. All public elementary schools are run by the Commonwealth's Department of Education. 2002 is described below.</P> <P> On August 14. He was twelve years old at the time and did not know how to read.</P> <P> In the summer before Joshua started second grade. Requested a certified sign language interpreter to assist Joshua in the classroom.<STRONG> </STRONG>Joshua's mother is a special education teacher. The administrative judge found that Joshua's need for a certified sign language interpreter was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/94-9392.op.html">WILLIAMS V. TURPIN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Williams v. Circuit Judge:<p> Alexander Edmund Williams was convicted by a jury in Richmond County. He was sentenced to death on August 29. Her body was found in a remote. Divided up the jewelry that she was wearing on the day she disappeared. <p> On March 12. Williams was arrested and was advised of his <u>Miranda</u> rights. Doug Flanagan was appointed to represent Williams. Collins was appointed trial counsel. Although the murder weapon was not recovered. One of Williams's friends took investigators to an area where Williams had shot his gun and there they recovered empty cartridge cases that were consistent with the bullets recovered from the victim's body. 1986. <p> Richard Allen was appointed to represent Williams on appeal. Allen withdrew from the case and Williams's current counsel was appointed. Williams contends that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel was violated because O.L. Because his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is procedurally complex. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6205.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will issue a COA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU1MTgtcHIgT3JkZXJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5518-pr%20Order_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NY 20 21 22 ORDER A poll on whether to rehear this case en banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing en banc is hereby DENIED. With this order is filed a per curiam opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. PER CURIAM: A clear majority of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeks the guidance of the New York Court of Appeals to answer questions which are fundamentally issues of state law. The majority does not think it is appropriate to have an en banc proceeding on issues of state law where a panel has certified those issues and where resolution of those state law questions could well be outcome determinative of any remaining federal questions. The New York Court of Appeals has been a welcoming partner in the certification process and we have been grateful for its continuing counsel. As the certifying panel noted: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CL