Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Line 6 of second paragraph the section number is corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted of recklessly causing the death of her child. Persons act recklessly when they
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions under Jackson v. Unconstitutionally relieved the State of its burden of proof of an element of the crimes with which he was charged. I. General Background Sarausad is a naturalized citizen who immigrated as a child from the Philippines. Sarausad was a 19 year old student at the University of Washington in Seattle. These three were either Diablo members or associates. Sarausad's car was in the lead. They drove past an area of the school where BSP members were thought to be. Someone yelled that the police were there. Some of the Ballard students yelled that they were
|
|
USA V. ANDERSON
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
He was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. The immigration convictions were which After child endangerment 8 U.S.C. § felonies
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. The immigration convictions were which After child endangerment 8 U.S.C. § felonies
|
|
UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
WOODFORD At the penalty phase of a trial in which a death sentence is at stake. We are confronted here with the issue of whether. Directing the jury to consider any circumstance
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1998) *Judge Sloviter was Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at the time this appeal was argued. The issue on appeal before the en banc court is the continuing vitality of our opinion in United States v. Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1997) which permits a downward departure based on diminished capacity where the crime is non violent. Contending the district court should have granted him a downward departure for diminished capacity under USSG S 5K2.13 because (1) the unarmed bank robbery was non violent and (2) he has a well documented history of serious psychiatric illness. Askari's mental illness at the time he committed the bank robbery is not at issue. The district court found that Askari was not mentally competent and committed him. Missouri certified that Askari had recovered and was again mentally competent. Edward Guy examined Askari to assess whether he was competent to stand trial. Guy initially concluded that Askari was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia in partial remission.
|
|
98-2040 -- U.S. V. PRENTISS -- 07/12/2001
(2) whether the failure of an indictment to allege these elements deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction or instead is subject to harmless error review. A majority of this court agrees with the panel opinion's conclusion that the Indian and non Indian statuses of the victim and the defendant are elements of the crime of arson in Indian country under 18 U.S.C.
|
|
GRAYSON V. THOMPSON (7/16/2001, NO. 00-15721)
Darrell Grayson was convicted of the capital murder of an elderly widow and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Annie Laura Orr was an eighty six (86) year old widow who lived alone in her house in Montevallo. They were armed with a .38 Caliber handgun. Orr was elderly. Orr's bedroom where she was apparently sleeping. Darrell Grayson then placed a pillowcase over her head and wrapped two relatively long lengths of masking tape very tightly around her head so that when they were finished he[r] head then appeared to be that of a mummy. Orr's murder and was familiar generally with the Grayson family. Officers knew that Kennedy and Grayson were friends and had been seen together the previous night. Officers were aware that Grayson had worked for Mrs. Orr previously and that he was familiar with her residence. Grayson's Confessions
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Vargas was arrested by New York State authorities and indicted for second degree murder in connection with the stabbing death of his girlfriend. First degree manslaughter is a lesser included offense of second degree murder). Vargas was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 7 ˝ to 22 ˝ years in prison. When he was released on parole. Who was represented by counsel. Was enacted in 1988. Which expanded the definition of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
All six defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap. Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the 924(c)(1) count. We will conclude that venue was improper in New Jersey and. We will reverse Moreno's conviction under 4 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). We will affirm the defendants' convictions on all other counts. Lopez was arrested and the fourteen kilos of cocaine were seized. Montalvo told Avendano that the seizure of the fourteen kilos and the legal fees were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
All six defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap. and Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the
|
|
GRAYSON V. THOMPSON (7/16/2001, NO. 00-15721)
Darrell Grayson was convicted of the capital murder of an elderly widow and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Annie Laura Orr was an eighty six (86) year old widow who lived alone in her house in Montevallo. They were armed with a .38 Caliber handgun. Orr was elderly. Orr's bedroom where she was apparently sleeping. Darrell Grayson then placed a pillowcase over her head and wrapped two relatively long lengths of masking tape very tightly around her head so that when they were finished he[r] head then appeared to be that of a mummy. Orr's murder and was familiar generally with the Grayson family. Officers knew that Kennedy and Grayson were friends and had been seen together the previous night. Officers were aware that Grayson had worked for Mrs. Orr previously and that he was familiar with her residence. Grayson's Confessions
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). That Cisneros Perez's 2001 conviction for battery under California Penal Code section 242 was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2003 is hereby amended. Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended to delete the following sentence:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: An Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Roberto OrtegaMendez's 1998 conviction for battery under California Penal Code section 242 was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sentences for that offense are governed by United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2. This argument is foreclosed by Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents. 6878 UNITED STATES v. BELTRAN MUNGUIA I The base offense level for a violation of § 1326 is eight. Where the defendant was previously deported after being convicted of a felony that constitutes a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Payton was sentenced to death. 15172 PAYTON v. At issue here is Payton's contention that the jury did not consider. Directing the jury to consider any circumstance
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1998) *Judge Sloviter was Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at the time this appeal was argued. Concurring: Although it is a close question. I also conclude that a downward departure is not authorized by S 5K2.13 in this case. S 5K2.13 is not controlled by the scope of the phrase
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is titled
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1998) *Judge Sloviter was Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at the time this appeal was argued. Concurring: Although it is a close question. I also conclude that a downward departure is not authorized by S 5K2.13 in this case. S 5K2.13 is not controlled by the scope of the phrase
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
GONZALES 15815 Cuevas Gaspar is removable. Cuevas Gaspar was convicted for being an accomplice to residential burglary under Washington law. Cuevas Gaspar asserts that the BIA erred in concluding that he was removable because his conviction constituted a crime of moral turpitude. That he have resided in the United States continuously for seven years
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1 2) the Rape in the Third Degree conviction and a Delivery of Marijuana for Consideration conviction were not related under Guidelines section 4A1.2(a)(2). 3) discretionary downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was neither allowed nor warranted under Guidelines section 5K2.0. We have jurisdiction over the appeal of the first two rulings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We do not have jurisdiction over the appeal of the third ruling. The Rape in the Third Degree conviction arose from conAsberry was sentenced under Guidelines section 2K2.1. Asberry was arrested on July 1. His plea stated:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Alonzo Perry was convicted in a Wisconsin state court as a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Brown is substituted for her predecessor. We filed an opinion in this case holding that there is a reasonable probability that as a result of instructional error the jury did not consider constitutionally mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. Payton was a postAEDPA case and was decided under the highly deferential AEDPA standard. While the case before us is pre AEDPA and is determined by the application of the ordinary rules of constitutional interpretation. BROWN habeas corpus only if the state court was objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Such is not the case when AEDPA does not apply. If anything about AEDPA is clear. It is that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred in summarily affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) determination that Navarro Lopez's conviction under California Penal Code § 32 for accessory after the fact was a conviction involving a crime of moral turpitude. The BIA concluded that Navarro Lopez was inadmissible and ineligible for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction. FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Navarro Lopez is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in June 1984. Was sentenced to 270 days in jail and three years probation. He was denied entry and detained. Thereafter the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) filed an amended Notice to Appear (NTA) charging that he was inadmissible because he did not have valid entry documents under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(7)(A)(i)(I) and for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(2)(A)(i)(I). Penal Code § 32 constituted a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(2)(A)(i)(I): It is a crime involving moral turpitude because a conviction under this provision does show conduct NAVARRO LOPEZ v.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The governing statute is 18 U.S.C. § 5032. Whether the certification decision of the United States Attorney General or her designee the first step in the transfer proceedings is reviewable by a federal court. Because we believe that the core of the decision to certify is one left to the discretion of the federal prosecutor. We follow the majority circuit view and hold that we have jurisdiction to review only limited aspects of the certification decision. Including whether the certification is proper in form. Whether it was made in bad faith. For the non reviewable facets of the certification (that the Virgin Islands refuses to assume jurisdiction and that the case presents a substantial federal interest) are sufficient and sustain the certification. 2 The second step question. Turns on whether the possession crime with which the juvenile was charged. The commission of the crime will therefore present a substantial risk that physical force will be used. The order of the district court transferring the juvenile's case to federal court will thus be affirmed.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2002 is hereby recalled for the purpose of amending the opinion. Located at 277 F.3d 1173 is amended as follows: Page 1184 in section
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The laws which provide in certain controlled substance cases for sentences beyond the basic 20 year maximum imposed by § 841(b)(1)(C) for default cases where quantity is not a sentence determining factor. As have our sister circuits before us. 1 we hold that § 841 is not facially unconstitutional. Buckland was indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. As was customary. The jury was not instructed that it had to determine any particular amount of methamphetamine in order to convict Buckland. 841(b)(1)(A) was life. The district court determined at sentencing that the gross amount of drugs for which Buckland was responsible was almost eight kilograms and sentenced him to 824 months in prison. Buckland originally advanced several contentions: (1) the district court's findings on the type and quantity of methamphetamine were erroneous. Contending also that 915 these sentencing errors were not prejudicial and. That was plain. III DISCUSSION Buckland contends that § 841 is facially unconstitutional.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Charged along with more than a dozen other individuals in a 26 count indictment that was eventually redacted at trial to seven counts. To be followed by a three year term of supervised release. consolidated for sentencing before Judge Laken's offenses were Pauley. (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions on (a) the RICO conspiracy count. Laken and Black were indicted and tried on charges that they. Those coconspirators were to use part of the illegally gained moneys to fund their bribery payments to the union officials. The Pension Fund Fraud/Kickbacks Trial Laken and Black were tried in a 15 week trial in 2001 2002. Prior to its conclusion he entered into a plea agreement with the government. principal government witness was Jeffrey Pokross. Until he was arrested in 1996 and agreed to cooperate with the government. Pokross was a principal in DMN Capital Investments. The affairs of DMN Capital were overseen by Robert Lino. With Pokross's cooperation many conversations were recorded.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Charged along with more than a dozen other individuals in a 26 count indictment that was eventually redacted at trial to seven counts. To be followed by a three year term of supervised release. consolidated for sentencing before Judge Laken's offenses were Pauley. (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions on (a) the RICO conspiracy count. Laken and Black were indicted and tried on charges that they. Those coconspirators were to use part of the illegally gained moneys to fund their bribery payments to the union officials. The Pension Fund Fraud/Kickbacks Trial Laken and Black were tried in a 15 week trial in 2001 2002. Prior to its conclusion he entered into a plea agreement with the government. principal government witness was Jeffrey Pokross. Until he was arrested in 1996 and agreed to cooperate with the government. Pokross was a principal in DMN Capital Investments. The affairs of DMN Capital were overseen by Robert Lino. With Pokross's cooperation many conversations were recorded.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
David Wayne Hull appeals from the judgment of conviction entered by the District Court after he was found guilty by a jury on 7 of 10 counts related to explosives. We will vacate Hull's conviction as to Count 7. Was arrested on February 13. A search warrant was executed by law enforcement on his home. Hull did not have licenses or registrations for any of the weapons or explosives. Hull apparently deduced the informant was just that. The agents reserved the right to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will deny Caroleo's petition. Caroleo was indicted in New Jersey Superior Court on a number of charges related to an attack he committed on a woman in Middlesex County. Caroleo was sentenced. Caroleo was served by the INS with a Notice to Appear.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Omar contends that his Minnesota convictions for criminal vehicular homicide are not aggravated felonies. Because we conclude that criminal vehicular homicide is an aggravated felony under federal law. They have a child born in the United States. Omar was drinking with friends after work when one of them received a call from some Somalis at the airport who asked to be picked up in his sport utility vehicle. The friend felt he was unable to drive because of the alcohol he had consumed. Everyone was thrown from it. Two passengers were killed. Another was badly injured. Omar's blood alcohol content was measured soon after the accident at 0.11. He was sentenced to 48 2 months for each offense. The sentence was stayed on condition he serve two years in a county workhouse and pay restitution. It held that criminal vehicular homicide is an aggravated felony within the meaning of the INA. Because by its nature it involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used against the person or property of another and is therefore a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).3 Omar petitioned this court for review and moved for a stay of deportation.
|
|
00-3224 -- BEEM V. MCKUNE -- 01/27/2003
Their cases were consolidated for our review. Background Beem was charged in the District Court of Reno County. Arguing that because he was related to his victim. He should have been charged with aggravated incest rather than indecent liberties with a child pursuant to a state law rule announced in State v. The Kansas Supreme Court denied review. Henson was charged in the District Court of Miami County. Because the victim was his step daughter. He should have been charged with aggravated incest
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether Washington residential burglary is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. With whom Billings & Silverstein was on brief. Punishment for an offense is. Increased when the defendant was previously convicted of unrelated crimes. The substantive issue is whether the crime of aggravated criminal mischief under state law is categorically a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Larry Begay was sentenced to 188 months' imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Begay's three
previous felony convictions for driving while intoxicated was a
|
|
98-2040 -- U.S. V. PRENTISS -- 02/24/2000
(2) the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege his Indian or non Indian status and the Indian or non Indian status of the victim. (3) there was insufficient evidence in this case to support his conviction because the government failed to prove the Indian or non Indian status of the defendant or victim. Prentiss's indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege the Indian or non Indian status of the defendant and victim. Because the conviction was based upon an indictment which failed to allege an essential element. Prentiss was home caring for his three young children and the two children of a family friend. The fire was extinguished. Immediately upon extinguishing the fire. The outlet showed no sign of the sparking and arcing that one would have expected had the electrical socket itself failed. See id. at 274 75. After the fire was extinguished. Prentiss told fire investigators that he was watching a boxing match on HBO immediately before the fire. See Rec. vol.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Introduction Defendant Appellant Raul Cornelio Pena was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas of illegal reentry following deportation. The district court reasoned that solicitation to commit burglary of a dwelling is a crime of violence under U.S. The district court also imposed an identical alternative sentence of fifty seven months in the event the Guidelines were declared unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. 3742(a). Because solicitation to commit burglary of a dwelling is a crime of violence under USSG 2L1.2. Was convicted in Arizona of solicitation to commit burglary in the second degree.(1) He received three years' (1) Under Arizona law. Id. 13 1507.
probation and was deported. Cornelio Pena returned to the United States and was charged with. Cornelio Pena's base offense level was eight. Reasoning that solicitation of burglary is a crime of violence. Cornelio Pena's criminal history category was determined to be IV.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appeals the BIA's streamlined decision finding that he was removable for having been convicted of a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
D.C. 20044 Counsel for Respondent This case was argued before the panel of Judges Ambro. It is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). We do not have jurisdiction to consider the IJ's conclusion that Alaka abandoned her lawful permanent resident status. I. Factual Background Alaka is a citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States without inspection in November. Is now called the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She was ultimately denied this relief. There are thus two sets of facts relevant to this petition: Alaka's criminal history and her trips abroad.2 In 1992. Alaka was convicted in the United States for aiding and abetting bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2. She was indicted on three counts for conduct involving fraudulent checks. Alaka was convicted. For which the actual loss was $4. She argued at sentencing that the finding of intended loss should be based only on the charge for which she was convicted. Alaka is a member of the Yoruba tribe in Nigeria and a Christian.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Have been substituted for their predecessors. Ruling that Petitioner's prior conviction for assault of a peace officer is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A vote was taken. Is DENIED. The initial order concerning Petitioner Sarausad's custody is VACATED. The district court is instructed on remand 12065 12066 SARAUSAD v. This is fundamentally a case about Washington state's right to define the parameters of accomplice liability under its own state law. The required deference to state court interpretations of state law was reinforced and supplemented by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) after passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I Moses Corona Sanchez was born in Guadalajara. When he was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol. Corona Sanchez was apprehended in 1994 while attempting to spirit away a 12 pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes from a grocery store.1 This was a reprise of his previous unsuccessful petty larceny of a liquor store. So he was sentenced for petty theft with a prior conviction. It increased Corona Sanchez's base offense level from 8 to 24 pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b) (1)(A).2 After subtracting 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility and determining that Corona Sanchez's criminal history category is VI. II We adopt the portion of the panel opinion in this case that addresses an error in the indictment under which CoronaNo documents from this conviction are a part of the record in this case. As is discussed more fully later. Corona Sanchez's attorney in the present case explained to the district court that these are the facts of the prior conviction according to Corona Sanchez's recollection.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case was remanded to us by the en banc court. Whether he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his 1992 theft offense constitutes an aggravated felony as defined in section 1101(a)(43)(G). Was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1990. He was sentenced to two years probation for the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is the third appeal arising out of an effort by the Internal Revenue Service (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will provide only a basic recitation of the facts. The client was the target of an investigation into whether he had received improper payments. 604 documents that it claims are protected under the attorney client or work product privileges. The attorney client and attorney work product privileges were vitiated under the crime fraud exception to these privileges. The court also concluded that because there was no evidence that the attorney had known of the client's fraud. The district court determined that the rest of the documents it had reviewed were not discoverable under the crime fraud exception because they were not generated in furtherance of any fraud.2 The district court also permitted the attorney to decline to answer the grand jury's questions. A. Issues Pertaining Primarily to the Government's Appeal Attorney client communications and attorney work product are privileged and are not ordinarily discoverable even by the grand jury. Neither the attorney client privilege nor the work product privilege is absolute.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Section 2 the last slash in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Mishann Chinn were found murdered in the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge in Prince George's County. Dustin John Higgs was subsequently convicted by a federal jury of three counts of first degree premeditated murder. All of which are punishable by life imprisonment or death. Higgs was also convicted of three counts of using a firearm
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Honorable Will L. Defendant appellant Charles Mack (Mack) was convicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Wessels stated that it was Mack. Wessels was then transported to a local hospital where doctors removed a .380 caliber bullet from his right leg. These shell casings were found just a few feet away from where Mack had been standing and were consistent with ejection from a .380 caliber handgun. Examination and test firing of Mack's .380 caliber handgun revealed that it was operational and contained gunshot residue in its barrel. The .380 caliber bullet removed from Wessels's leg was also analyzed. The bullet was of the same caliber and did in fact have markings consistent with being fired from Mack's handgun. Wessels denied that it was Mack who shot him. 3 On June 30. Which proscribes the offense of which Mack was convicted. Section 922 is entitled
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
OPINION PER CURIAM: Mohammad Musa Yousefi (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are once more called upon to determine whether a particular state crime qualifies as one
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After our original opinion in this case was filed. The issue in this case is whether mere possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Torres Ruiz was arrested after he jumped from a bus as it was traveling on Interstate 15 in Utah. He admitted that he was a native and citizen of Mexico. An INS investigation revealed that he had no applications or petitions pending or approved that would have allowed him to legally enter or remain in the United States. Torres Ruiz was indicted on one count of illegally reentering the United States following deportation. He was convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court (California) of the felony offense of driving under the influence. The PSR stated that
|
|
COOK V. RILEY (4/14/2000, NO. 98-6273)
The BOP has interpreted
|
|
02-1367 -- U.S. V. VIGIL -- 07/08/2003
Vigil was convicted of sexually penetrating his natural child over a period of slightly less than two years.
|
|
COOK V. RILEY (4/14/2000, NO. 98-6273)
The BOP has interpreted
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ballinger claims that § 247 is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. We have little trouble concluding that § 247. Is a constitutional expression of Congress' well established power to regulate the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce in order to prevent their use for harmful purposes. Concluding that § 247 was constitutional both facially and as applied. The panel held that although § 247 was a constitutional exercise of the commerce power. Ballinger is a practicing
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that Gill's crime of conviction cannot constitute a crime involving moral turpitude because it lacks the requisite mental state and that we have jurisdiction to reach this issue. Is not a CIMT because it requires only a reckless state of mind. Whereas some positive intent is required for a CIMT. Because it is legally impossible. The legal incoherence of Gill's crime of conviction was not argued in the administrative proceedings below. This argument is subsidiary to the general argument Gill did make before the BIA: that his crime of conviction did not reflect a sufficiently culpable mental state to be designated a CIMT. We hold that our basis for reversing the BIA's decision is not precluded by the exhaustion requirement for immigration appeals. Whose father is a United States citizen. Was admitted to the United States as a visitor in 1989. Which proscribes
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 29 the cross reference is corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The conviction is AFFIRMED. The sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further findings consistent with this opinion. Background The underlying facts in this case are not in dispute. Tyrice Sawyers (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Should stand.1 Chong and Chang were convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm. Ct. 501 1 Argument before a three judge panel was held on October 29. Before an opinion in the case was published. Argument before the full court was heard on April 8. Chong and Chang were convicted of conspiracy to kidnap. Chong also was convicted of bringing in aliens. Chong and Chang claim that they are entitled to new trials because of numerous procedural errors made by the district court. The Chinese nationals were told by the smugglers that they could pay this
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Campos was convicted of felony theft. Campos was convicted of violating what was then Arizona Revised Statutes § 28 697(A)(1). Campos admitted that he was driving on that day. That his blood alcohol content was .164. Also that he did not have a valid license to drive. That he knew he was not licensed to drive at the time. Campos was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for his 2002 aggravated DUI conviction. Charging CamArizona Revised Statutes § 28 697 was renumbered to § 28 1383 in 1996. 1996 Ariz. All further references to Arizona's aggravated driving under the influence statute will use the current numbering. 1 MARMOLEJO CAMPOS v. Arguing that his aggravated DUI convictions were not crimes of moral turpitude after this court's decision in Hernandez Martinez v. Concluding that Hernandez Martinez simply held that Arizona Revised Statutes § 28 1383 was divisible. That the BIA erred in not examining the underlying conduct to make sure that the alien was not convicted of an aggravated DUI without actually driving a vehicle.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
For Plaintiff Appellee. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Quijada was convicted in Massachusetts of two counts of assault and battery after his girlfriend. Including that he had been convicted in 1998 in Massachusetts for two counts of assault and battery and that those convictions were for aggravated felonies. Quijada was charged with and pled guilty to two offenses entitled
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge's removal order based on a determination that petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony. Section 13D is an aggravated felony and. (2) because Blake remained in the country without authorization from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the BIA and deny Henry's petition for review. I. Factual and Procedural History Henry is a native of Jamaica and has been a lawful permanent resident since January 3. Henry was arrested in New York and subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under § 265.03. This is an Armed Felony Offense.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issue in this case is whether mere possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that the statement was taken in violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and in violation of his entitlement to Miranda warnings under the Fifth Amendment. Bowdich's subsequent investigation led him to believe that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Patel contends that his Illinois conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse is not an aggravated felony within the meaning of the removal statute. BACKGROUND Patel is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States on February 18. In which it charged that Patel was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because he had committed an aggravated felony. He was entitled to rely on § 212(c) because he was convicted in 1989. Because it is the same as the version applicable at the time of Patel's conviction in October 1989. Patel represents that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The question is whether the term
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the constitutionality of New York's DNA statute is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We agree that the ordinance is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the district court. Minors may participate in any activity during curfew hours if they are accompanied by a parent. The ordinance exempts minors who are engaged in interstate travel. Are on the sidewalk abutting their parents' residence. Or are involved in an emergency. The ordinance does not affect minors who are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. This matter is before us in the context of an ongoing grand jury investigation of suspected federal criminal activity. We will refer only to such facts as have been made public by the Assistant U.S. Because the grand jury is impaneled for only a limited lifetime. Some of his business dealings have apparently been carried out by an entity we call. It appears that Jane Doe is also a target of the grand jury investigation. If she was not at the outset. She certainly has 2 become a target in light of the events with which we are concerned. These are not at issue here. The Government was unsatisfied with the document production. The Government notified Attorney that it wished to have FBI and IRS experts perform a scan of the Organization's computers to recover stored information. Claiming that Attorney's advice regarding compliance with the subpoena is privileged. Attorney and Jane Doe were permitted to intervene with regard to the motion. The dispute before the District Court was limited to whether Attorney should be compelled to reveal the substance of his January 20.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He argues that application of a sixteen level enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
His major complaint is that the government improperly joined and tried separate and unrelated crimes and conspiracies he allegedly committed with several individuals over the course of many years. We will affirm the convictions for the reasons set forth below. The trial evidence showed that Irizarry was a central member of a criminal group that operated out of Jersey City. Irizarry's principal job was carrying out the group's criminal activities. Franco Durso was Irizarry's boss. These five individuals formed the core membership of Irizarry's crew although others were associated with it from time to time. Ranieri was next in line to take control of a group that was the Sicilian wing of the notorious Gambino crime family. Ranieri was based in Brooklyn. McGuiness testified that a
|
|
97-1287 -- U.S. V. MCVEIGH -- 09/08/1998
McVeigh (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Suzanne Schoenberg Sanchez (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jaadan contends that (1) there is insufficient record evidence to show that he was convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. (2) he is entitled to relief. Because his felonious assault conviction was not. Jaadan's arguments are without merit. Facts Jaadan is a native and citizen of Iraq who was admitted to the United States as an immigrant in November 1976. Jaadan was convicted in Michigan in July 1982 of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny. Jaadan was convicted in Michigan of felonious assault. This conviction was evidently the result of an incident involving Jaadan's sister. Jaadan was subsequently found to be a habitual offender under Michigan law and was resentenced in March 1994. The IJ concluded that Jaadan was deportable on this basis. Which was available to permanent residents who had been domiciled in the United States for seven consecutive years. The BIA remanded the case so that (1) Jaadan could apply for relief under section 212(c) of the INA (because the AEDPA's amendments restricting that section are not retroactive).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(4) that the district court erred in denying Jackson's motion for a mistrial based upon the alleged prosecutorial misconduct of calling a witness whose testimony was tainted and unreliable. JACKSON 3 court erred in allowing the jury to consider multiple intent factors when only one was necessary for imposition of the death penalty. (11) that the statutory aggravating circumstance found by the jury of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He claims that the Commission's conclusion that he was affiliated with an organized crime family was not supported by any evidence. That an organized crime affiliation is not enough. We will reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. I. Erasmo Gambino is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fairton. He was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin. Gambino was also convicted of use of a telephone in a conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin. He was sentenced to a 34 year term of imprisonment and a $95. Gambino was cited for attempted escape from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. He was later found guilty and given a 30 day disciplinary segregation as punishment. Gambino was entitled to a parole hearing. The United States Parole Commission conducted a parole hearing and Gambino was denied release.2 The Hearing Panel assigned Gambino a Category Six Offense Severity Rating because he had been convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 but less than 999 grams of pure heroin.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Marlon Dale Sun Bear (Sun Bear) was charged with committing and aiding and abetting second degree murder. Sun Bear argues that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender. Sun Bear and Gunhammer continued to beat Cordell after he was unconscious. The district court determined that three of Sun Bear's prior adult convictions were felony crimes of violence. The three offenses were (1) an attempted escape in 1995 in Sheridan County. The district court found that Sun Bear is a career offender and increased his offense level to 37. He argues that none of the three prior convictions relied upon by the district court is a felony crime of violence. If a sentencing argument was not properly presented below. A
|
|
UNITED STATES V. GECAS
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3048a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F10F7017C3EACDD88257145006F44AE/$file/0476600.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Afridi was removable for having committed an aggravated felony. Was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 1985 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1986. Afridi pled no contest to his indictment under what is now California Penal Code § 261.5(c) (West 2005) for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator and was sentenced to three years probation. Who was born in 1961. GONZALES his having had sexual intercourse with a seventeen year old girl he picked up on the side of the road who said she would have sex with him for sixty dollars. A notice to appear was issued charging Mr. Afridi as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because he was convicted of an aggravated felony the sexual assault of a minor after admission into the United States. Afridi was removable. Afridi was removable for having committed an aggravated felony. (3) the IJ was correct in its determination that Mr. Afridi first contends that the BIA improperly determined that his conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator constituted an aggravated felony.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E4EFF73123E910DA88256E930079EDED/$file/0310276.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The two paragraphs on slip op. 3523 that read: 6312 UNITED STATES v. We have previously held that in interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines. We are not bound by the common law. His California state conviction for first degree burglary was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></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-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-3048a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. Our sister circuits that have addressed this question have rejected Barnes's reading of section 921(a)(33)(A). It is an issue of first impression for us. While section 921(a)(33)(A) is not a paradigm of precise draftsmanship. 1997 Barnes was charged in D.C. Is his son's mother. Barnes was sentenced to a prison term of 180 days. Execution of which was suspended on the condition of a one year period of probation. Believing that the car was stolen. The search revealed that he did not have a valid license. Barnes was charged with the unlawful and knowing receipt and posses sion of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 922(g)(9). Was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/96a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The Question Presented This is a direct criminal appeal by a convicted Tennessee state judge. Section 242 was adopted as a codification of prior law in 1874 during the period of Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. It criminalizes without any further definition the willful
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/655BD1BE9AE04E3F882572D4005A7871/$file/0550415.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: I The issue before us is whether a driver who transports a group of illegal aliens from a drop off point in the United States to another destination in this country commits only the offense of transporting aliens
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1734.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></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-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053334p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Maurice Lavira is an above the knee amputee with a lifelong political affiliation with exiled former President Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti. He is also HIV positive. That his conviction for purchasing a $10 bag of drugs for an undercover agent was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004414.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Elliot Johnson (Johnson) was convicted of possession of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute and distribution of crack within 1. After concluding that Johnson was a career offender pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (Sentencing Guidelines or USSG) § 4B1.1. It was later determined that these events occurred within 1. Johnson was charged in a single count superceding indictment with possession of crack with intent to distribute and distribution of crack within 1. Johnson was convicted. Johnson was sentenced on May 23. The district court determined that Johnson was a career offender pursuant to USSG § 4B1.1. The district court found that Johnson was over the age of eighteen at the time of the instant offense and that he had one prior felony conviction for a controlled substance offense. A 1992 New JerBecause Johnson was sentenced in May 2000. Johnson's offense level was increased from twenty eight to thirty four. II The issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred when it sentenced Johnson as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0CD63A539857F6F388256D7500835A5B/$file/0210071.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For which an 8 level enhancement was appropriate. Was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8091.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. The court wishes to acknowledge that the attorneys in this case have submitted excellent briefs. Attorney's office is equally well represented. This appeal requires us to decide whether a Nevada felony conviction for Driving Under the Influence (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-6487.htm">98-6487 -- U.S. V. JACKSON -- 06/02/2000<BR></A><BR>
We determine none have merit. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Elk City Police Department decided to set up video surveillance at two residences they suspected were at the center of a crack distribution system. Two VCRs and a transmitter that allowed officers to record and listen to conversations in and around the car as they were occurring. <p> During their investigation. The Elk City Police were holding Ms. Which was recorded.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5072CA9F7CBF2E4988256E240077B624/$file/0272978.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Jesus Aaron Cazarez Gutierrez (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/021C12DA5CE95B0A88257129005B5CDE/$file/0372028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby withdrawn and replaced by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. Further petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc will be accepted. Valencia was convicted of felony1 unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under eighteen. Who was more than three years younger than he. Our jurisdiction is controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The imposition of his sentence was suspended for a period of five years. During which time he was placed on probation on the condition that he serve one year in the county jail. Valencia was charged in the notice to appear with being removable as an aggravated felon for committing sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). It was charged as a felony. 1 2176 VALENCIA v. The IJ dismissed the charge that Valencia was removable for having committed sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). III We do not have jurisdiction to review the propriety of any final order of removal against an alien who is ordered removed for having committed an aggravated felony covered in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(c).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015858.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was constitutionally firm. I. The facts surrounding the death of Lathen Aaron Dodd are undisputed. Any patrons who were not already lying down were forced to the ground. The perpetrators continued to abuse them physically patrons were 2 hit on the head. Once all of the customers were secured on the ground. As the patrons were being robbed of their possessions. Demanded to know who the owner of the bar was. This robber demanded to know where the rest of the money was. When he was told that there was no more money. The patrons were forced to crawl to the restroom at the back of the bar. While they were on the way to the bathroom. More shots were fired. Dodd was then taken to the hospital. The cause of death was bleeding that resulted from a gunshot wound to the chest and abdomen. 3 A. Attorney Herbert Massie was appointed to represent Brownlee. His representation ended when Massie was suspended from the practice of law for failing to comply with his continuing legal education requirements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B452315800BEE0288256EF9007B9123/$file/0272978.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ASHCROFT 11973 Immigration Appeals (BIA or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/763c6bb41528aee988256a1d005e8ed2/$FILE/0010146.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing on the grounds that Lopez Pastrana's prior conviction for shoplifting should not have been counted in determining his criminal history category. Defendant was convicted of violating Reno Municipal Code § 8.10.045 (1998) (shoplifting) after he attempted to steal a wallet valued at $19 from a local department store. He was fined $200 and sentenced to sixteen hours of community service. His sentence was increased from a potential term of imprisonment of 70 87 months to a possible sentence of 77 96 months. The shoplifting conviction should have been excluded because shoplifting is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B593928536A702348825714500451C0C/$file/0410577.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Frazer Scott Piccolo appeals the district court's determination that his conviction for walkaway escape from a halfway house is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/763C6BB41528AEE988256A1D005E8ED2/$file/0010146.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing on the grounds that Lopez Pastrana's prior conviction for shoplifting should not have been counted in determining his criminal history category. Defendant was convicted of violating Reno Municipal Code § 8.10.045 (1998) (shoplifting) after he attempted to steal a wallet valued at $19 from a local department store. He was fined $200 and sentenced to sixteen hours of community service. His sentence was increased from a potential term of imprisonment of 70 87 months to a possible sentence of 77 96 months. The shoplifting conviction should have been excluded because shoplifting is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-7005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Kenneth Barrett was convicted of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to several drug trafficking crimes. Barrett was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release for the first two convictions. State law enforcement officials were aware of his presence and continued to investigate his activities. Received information from a confidential informant (CI) that Barrett was manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine at his residence. Johnson was aware that Barrett routinely carried firearms and had threatened to kill law enforcement officers if they
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9B800FB1A3FB4FD88256E5A00707AC0/$file/0010146.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing on the grounds that Lopez Pastrana's prior conviction for shoplifting should not have been counted in determining his criminal history category. Defendant was convicted of violating Reno Municipal Code § 8.10.045 (1998) (shoplifting) after he attempted to steal a wallet valued at $19 from a local department store. He was fined $200 and sentenced to sixteen hours of community service. His sentence was increased from a potential term of imprisonment of 70 87 months to a possible sentence of 77 96 months. The shoplifting conviction should have been excluded because shoplifting is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CCFB5DD4B6D6347088256BE2007530B3/$file/0070595.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) was an alien without a valid immigrant visa. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). 1195 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Our jurisdiction is not foreclosed by IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G) which precludes judicial review in cases where an alien is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed a controlled substance offense. We have repeatedly held that we retain jurisdiction to determine whether an alien in fact committed acts that would trigger IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G). Because the central issue here is whether Pazcoguin in fact admitted to committing the essential elements of a controlled substance violation. We have jurisdiction. Was issued a United States immigrant visa by the American Embassy in Manilla. Pazcoguin This case is governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA. Until he was approximately 21 years old. Pazcoguin was paroled into the United States for deferred inspection. Inspector Kalin terminated the proceeding and determined that Pazcoguin was excludable from the United States because of his prior use of marijuana in the Philippines.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-3262.htm">00-3262 -- U.S. V. AVERY -- 07/09/2002<BR></A><BR>
He asserts that all of his convictions should be overturned because they were not supported by sufficient evidence. Was conducting surveillance on a residence suspected of housing drug trafficking activity. Avery was driving with a suspended license. Officer Shade immediately believed the substance was powder cocaine and placed Mr. Avery was never charged in connection with these narcotics. <p> After arresting Mr. Officer Shade asked him if there were any other drugs in the car. A confidential informant told agents
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Petition for Rehearing is therefore denied. This court has invalidated Allen's sentence on nothing more than its unexplained speculation that some juror might have voted to sentence Allen differently had the jury not been instructed that it had to unanimously find the following inconsequential (if not affirmatively damaging)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/512E3C02494CE90588256C5C007CB6B9/$file/0070595.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended by striking 4 PAZCOGUIN v. No change is made in the majority opinion. Judges Thompson and O'Scannlain have voted to deny the Petition for Rehearing. The Petition for Rehearing and the Petition for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED. (2) was an alien without a valid immigrant visa. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). RADCLIFFE 5 2000).1 Our jurisdiction is not foreclosed by IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G) which precludes judicial review in cases where an alien is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed a controlled substance offense. We have repeatedly held that we retain jurisdiction to determine whether an alien in fact committed acts that would trigger IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G). Because the central issue here is whether Pazcoguin in fact admitted to committing the essential elements of a controlled substance violation. We have jurisdiction. Was issued a United States immigrant visa by the American Embassy in Manilla. Until he was approximately 21 years old. Pazcoguin subsequently arrived at the Honolulu International Airport and applied for admission into the United This case is governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/d9b800fb1a3fb4fd88256e5a00707ac0/$FILE/0010146.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing on the grounds that Lopez Pastrana's prior conviction for shoplifting should not have been counted in determining his criminal history category. Defendant was convicted of violating Reno Municipal Code § 8.10.045 (1998) (shoplifting) after he attempted to steal a wallet valued at $19 from a local department store. He was fined $200 and sentenced to sixteen hours of community service. His sentence was increased from a potential term of imprisonment of 70 87 months to a possible sentence of 77 96 months. The shoplifting conviction should have been excluded because shoplifting is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BC8AD944D674A8E088257069004DDBC9/$file/0450260.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that a conviction under the California statute was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/41C6261BDE70D75888257187007BC638/$file/0410090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Amended Opinion and Amended Dissent. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression in any federal circuit and the vast majority of state courts.1 A The dissent points to only two states whose supreme courts have addressed this issue: Maine and California. It is squarely presented. Facts Scott was arrested in Nevada on state charges of drug possession and released on his own recognizance. Scott was required to sign a form stating that he agreed to comply with certain conditions. Among the conditions was consent to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2123.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. Appellant Kenneth Leon Meader was convicted on all three counts of an indictment charging him with distributing cocaine. I. Factual Background The facts of the crime are largely irrelevant to the issues we face on appeal. The jury could have found that appellant abducted the mother of his young son at gunpoint from her parents' home. Defense counsel advised the court that he had received information about a juror that suggested that she possibly was biased. Who reported that his mother had a history of abusive relationships and consequently was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0124p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a state prisoner incarcerated on Ohio's death row. With the capital specification that the murder was committed to escape detection. Stumpf alleges (1) that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. (2) that his due process rights were violated by the state's use of inconsistent theories to secure convictions against both Stumpf and his accomplice. (3) that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. (4) that the Ohio death penalty statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. Stumpf had waived his right to a trial by jury and elected to have his case heard by a threejudge panel. The threejudge panel held such a hearing in this case and found that there was a factual basis for Stumpf's plea. That he was guilty of aggravated murder with the capital specification and. That there was insufficient mitigating evidence to spare Stumpf from imposition of the death penalty. That he was not present when the victim was shot. The state argued in response that Stumpf was the shooter.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610895.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was 22 years old at the time of the prior offense. Had engaged in sexual intercourse with a female who was less than 16 years old. Ivory's resulting guideline range was 100 to 125 months' imprisonment. Arguing that his base offense level was improperly enhanced because the court erroneously determined that his prior Ivory was sentenced under the 2004 version of the sentencing guidelines. All guidelines citations are to the 2004 version unless otherwise noted. 2 1 Alabama conviction for second degree rape was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1 and 4B1.2. He further argued that the PSI's recommendation of a four level enhancement based on the offense's connection with another felony offense was in violation of United States v. Was not found guilty of. Ivory was then sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment to run consecutively with the revocation of his supervised release. The interpretation of Alabama's statute for second degree rape is a question of law and is also subject to de novo review. 1285 (11th Cir. 2004). 3 DISCUSSION We have not previously considered whether Alabama's statute for second degree rape constitutes a crime of violence pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1 and 4B1.2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Motley Page 2 Kentucky law1 and was thus unavailable for cross examination at Fulcher's trial. We find that the admission of Ash's statements did violate Fulcher's clearly established rights and that the error was not harmless. Charlie Bramer was found beaten and stabbed to death in his home in Jefferson County. Fulcher was convicted of burglary. No murder weapon was found. Fulcher's fingerprints were not discovered at the crime scene. He and Fulcher were drinking and watching football at Fulcher's house on the day of the crime. Wright testified that there was nothing he could do to stop Fulcher. Fulcher told Wright that he killed Bramer because Bramer would otherwise have been able to identify them. Patricia Sue Ash was pulled over in a car matching the description of Fulcher's vehicle. Ash could not recall whether Fulcher was present for the discussion. Wright later testified that he was. Where it was recovered by the police. Who had known Fulcher before the murder and who was an inmate with Fulcher. Are carried forward for later trials of pre 1992 crimes by Kentucky Rule of Evidence 107(b) (2005).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE07E4E01DB1935C8825729D007EC8C4/$file/0615886.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When the district court is asked to order outright disclosure. The burden of proof on the party seeking to vitiate the privilege is preponderance of the evidence. We conclude the appellees in this case have failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing to support a finding that the crime fraud exception applies. Leiber et al. and Capitol Records et al. (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AF9CDBF349C03F3688256EC900825EF3/$file/0210445.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was imposed in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). He argues that burglary of an occupied building in Nevada is not a crime of violence according to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That the appropriate Guidelines range is therefore 92 115 months. He was sentenced to 280 months. The two convictions proffered were a 1986 battery. Which Matthews argued was not a crime of violence according to the Guidelines. Which was below the Guidelines range of 130 to 162 months that otherwise would have applied. DISCUSSION
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007486.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Constance Cunningham was convicted of tampering with a consumer product with reckless disregard for and extreme indifference to the risk of human death or injury. Who is still in prison. Which was denied by the district court. We are persuaded by the soundness of the BOP's judgment. Hospital staff discovered that someone was tampering with Demerol syringes by replacing the Demerol with a saline solution. Demerol is a powerful painkiller. It is used for the relief of moderate to severe pain. The result was positive for Demerol. The government indicted Cunningham for tampering with a consumer product
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9D33A3EF8BC665C88256D95005BFD72/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
STEWART 12713 I It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal was argued before the panel of Judges Sloviter. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. * (Filed June 6. 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-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal was argued before the panel of Judges Sloviter. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. * (Filed June 6. 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-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/041143P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are again asked whether a felony conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA). 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (defining violent felony as a felony involving
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dana & Gould LLP were on brief. Were on brief. Even for the federal agencies charged with enforcing the laws is illustrated by this case. What is involved is properly ascertaining congressional intent in light of constitutional guarantees in decision of cases. What is involved is whether she will be deported. Possibly back to that war torn land she left when she was a child. The complexity of the immigration laws was enhanced by two new statutes. Was signed into law. Was signed into law. Both statutes contain jurisdiction stripping provisions removing from the federal circuit courts of appeals their previous jurisdiction over certain categories of final orders of deportation. 2 2 This case was originally argued on May 9. It would have been vastly preferable. For the INS to have asserted this jurisdictional argument initially. We have some concern about the government's burdening of immigrants with the obligation to respond to new found statutory interpretations by the INS after a case has been heard and decided.1 Nonetheless.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/37E5B5AECFA4A7D3882571450044D3D3/$file/0372087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was placed on three years' formal probation under Oregon's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun21/03-40741-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted in January 2003 for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by unlawfully reentering the United States after having been removed following an aggravated felony conviction. The prior conviction that generated the sentence enhancement was a 2002 Missouri conviction for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004323.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that Brandon was an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1) (West 2000) and sentenced him to 180 months. While the sentence for a section 922(g) violation ordinarily is not more than ten years. As is relevant to this case. A controlled substance . . . for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1A6E0F17C62F8DF88256E5C006D4765/$file/0310276.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
SARBIA state court conviction of attempting to discharge a firearm at an occupied structure was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul30/03-40741-cr0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted in January 2003 for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by unlawfully reentering the United States after having been removed following an aggravated felony conviction. The prior conviction that generated the sentence enhancement was a 2002 Missouri conviction for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016434.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that McCoy's Apprendi claims in his initial § 2255 motion are not jurisdictional and are barred by Teague's nonretroactivity standard. He is procedurally barred from raising them in his initial § 2255 motion. That is. Which were based on the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) applicable to cocaine base offenses involving more than 50 grams. Arguing that his sentence was illegal under Apprendi v. The magistrate judge to whom McCoy's motion was referred recommended that the district court deny McCoy's § 2255 petition on the ground that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2206.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is. Was (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. That its error was plain error requiring our remand for resentencing. Defendant was taken into custody by a United States Border Patrol agent in the State of New Mexico. Defendant admitted he was a citizen of Mexico and had entered the United States illegally. A criminal complaint was filed against defendant in federal court charging him with illegal reentry. That the 16 level enhancement imposed by the district court under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) was unreasonable. We agree that defendant is entitled to be resentenced.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxNTUtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4155-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The entrapment doctrine recognizes that it is necessary (and indeed. Appropriate) for the police to act affirmatively in attempting to prevent the commission of crimes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034253.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of which are connected to his support of Hizballah. The appeal was argued before a three judge panel. I. Facts The facts underlying Hammoud's convictions and sentence are largely undisputed. A. Hizballah Hizballah is an organization founded by Lebanese Shi'a Muslims in response to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. It is also a strong opponent of Western presence in the Middle East. Hizballah is particularly opposed to the existence of Israel and to the activities of the American government in the Middle East. Hizballah's general secretary is Hassan Nasserallah. Its spiritual leader is Sheikh Fadlallah. While the asylum application was pending. Where his brothers and cousins were living. While the North Carolina tax is only 50˘. It is estimated that the conspiracy involved a quantity of cigarettes valued at roughly $7.5 million and that the state of Michigan was deprived of $3 million in tax revenues. These services were often conducted at Hammoud's home. Hammoud who is acquainted with both Nasserallah and Fadlallah.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1649p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting in part petitioner appellee/cross appellant Clifford Smith's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We will vacate the judgment of the district court in part. Smith was convicted offirst degree murder. A third eyewitness identified the car in which Smith and Alston were traveling just after the robbery. Which was later found at the homes of Alston. Items taken from the three robbery victims were later found at the homes of Barrow and Yancey. Although there was evidence that both Alston and Smith carried handguns that day. He wanted the ring
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-3135.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STONE (4/22/1998, NO. 96-3135)<BR></A><BR>
Senior District Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P><CENTER> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> All three defendants were charged in Count I of an eleven count indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Defendant Kelly Knight Stone (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994610.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 4
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-3135.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STONE (4/22/1998, NO. 96-3135)<BR></A><BR>
Senior District Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P><CENTER> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> All three defendants were charged in Count I of an eleven count indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Defendant Kelly Knight Stone (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110215.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
KAHN CLERK Petitioner Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Leslie English by the Georgia state courts in 1987. We conclude that Crawford is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence. Facts Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted for the murder of his 29 month old niece. The defendant was married to. The defendant was intoxicated and. During this time the victim was in the care of Mrs. He stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B2836B5DFA20EF888257292000308CE/$file/0471140.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. Is withdrawn and is replaced by an opinion and dissent filed contemporaneously with this order. The petition for rehearing en banc is dismissed as moot. A native and citizen of Mexico who is a permanent resident of the United States. DISCUSSION Malta Espinoza is removable if stalking. Or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that. The California statute that he was convicted of violating provided in pertinent part: 1 The Immigration Judge also found that Malta Espinoza was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E) by reason of his conviction for stalking. Relied only on the ground that Malta Espinoza's conviction was for a crime of violence. Is guilty of the crime of stalking . . . . Is whether this crime falls within the definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4051.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To attempt to persuade a minor to engage in sexual acts is not a crime of violence. Munro told her he was 21. Munro told Chantelle about his desire to perform oral sex on her so that he could make her
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1649p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<u>Circuit Judge</u>. <br wp=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E7A2686227CC52C988256E850077133B/$file/0256066ao.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) the California Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary was objectively unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Ramirez was caught walking out of a Sears department store in broad daylight carrying a $199 VCR for which he had not paid. The encounter was without violence. Prosecutors could have charged Ramirez with a petty theft misdemeanor. After he was convicted of this
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1641p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Roussos is a federal prison inmate serving a term for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. (2) whether the Program Statement is therefore inconsistent with the congressional statute authorizing early release and with the BOP regulations interpreting the statute. Was convicted following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/982549P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Security guard Richard Heflin was killed during an armed robbery of the Lindell Bank & Trust in St. Holder were charged and convicted in separate jury trials for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2. Allen was sentenced to life in prison on Count I and received a sentence of death on Count II. I. Background Holder was a regular customer of the Lindell Bank & Trust. Five hundred dollars was automatically deposited to his account each month from a legal settlement Holder obtained after losing the lower portion of one leg in a train accident. Allen and Holder were also seen together on several other occasions during the ten days leading up to the armed robbery. The night before the armed robbery two vans were stolen for use as the first two getaway vehicles after the robbery (Holder's mother's car was to be used as the third. The ballistics evidence showed that both rifles were discharged during the robbery and a total of sixteen shots were fired inside the bank. The remaining two could have come from either rifle. Was on fire and two park workers helped to extinguish the flames.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/411DF400F008CA6C88256E7B0058C302/$file/Ramirez+opinion+to+file+w+dissent.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) the California Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary was objectively unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Ramirez was caught walking out of a Sears department store in broad daylight carrying a $199 VCR for which he had not paid. The encounter was without violence. Prosecutors could have charged Ramirez with a petty theft misdemeanor. After he was convicted of this
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8027.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <hr> Raymond Dean Brown was convicted after a jury trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 115 months for the first two counts and 360 months for the third. Brown asserts (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of carrying a machine gun during and in relation to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Which was located near Rock Springs. Brown was cooking methamphetamine. Brown manufactured methamphetamine almost continuously from the time they returned to Wyoming at the end of October until they were arrested in mid November. Brown's initial instinct was to escape via Albertsons' back exit. They were surrounded by police. Who were seeking Ms. Brown's machine gun was later found in an unzipped bag and loaded with two magazines of bullets. Worrell was arrested. Brown was also arrested. While he was being questioned by the police. He was captured after he hurt himself during the escape and was taken to the hospital. Where a one gram package of methamphetamine was recovered from his sock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTI0MzNfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-2433_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While his appeal and a motion to stay the removal order were pending before this court. Kamagate was. Because Kamagate is. We conclude that his appeal is not moot. Kamagate asserts that he is entitled to § 2241 relief because the basis for his removal was an erroneous conclusion by an Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/002293.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 in cash and checks from her employer (the First Union National Bank) was an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004012.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Cornelius Studifin was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia of interfering with interstate commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 1951(a) (the Hobbs Act) (Count I). Whose face was masked by a dark stocking. Officer Michael Tunstall noticed a black male wearing a burgundy and gold Redskins cap and a black Raiders jacket who was carrying a black bag in his hands and running through the Community Pride parking lot. Including a description 2 of the robber and the fact that the robber was armed with a silver handgun. Who was later identified as Studifin. Studifin argues that his sentence constitutes double jeopardy because § 924(c) and § 924(e) punish the same conduct and because the 1998 amendments to § 924(c) prohibit the imposition of a mandatory consecutive sentence pursuant to § 924(c) where the mandatory minimum sentence from another provision of law is greater than the mandatory minimum consecutive sentence under § 924(c). Where the issue is solely that of multiple punishment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0049p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Foreman also challenges the district court's ruling that a prior conviction for fleeing and eluding in the fourth degree is a crime of violence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Foreman's Total Offense level was 21 and Criminal History 1 No. 04 2450 United States v. Foreman Page 2 Category was VI. A factor in the determination of Foreman's Total Offense level was his prior conviction for fleeing and eluding in the fourth degree. The district court concluded this was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1196.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A057A971B23BDF98825735200553C3B/$file/0099005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2007 *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Was convicted in 1979 for the robbery and murder of Rosemary Cobbs. He was sentenced to death. Both the convictions and sentence were upheld by the courts of California. We consider whether Fields was denied a fair trial on account of juror bias. The effect is to deny habeas relief. I Fields was paroled from prison on September 13. Rosemary was naked on the bed and Fields was standing by the door. A 16 year old girl who was the former girlfriend of Fields's brother. That he was going to take her on a long trip
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3835946F39ECD08E882573460049E265/$file/0515900.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case presents the question of whether the Attorney General may through an adjudicative decision create a strong presumption that a drug trafficking offense resulting in a sentence of less than five years is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964871.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Mike Kazinec were all convicted of conspiracy to transport or receive stolen goods. Actually was a largescale fence who bought stolen OTC and HBA from a number of shoplifters and smalltime fences. There was evidence that only four of the defendants. Actually knew that his OTC and HBA was stolen. The government proceeded on the dubious theory that the defendants were deliberately ignorant to the true source of Thomas's OTC and HBA because Thomas's operation was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-3224.htm">00-3224 -- BEEM V. MCKUNE -- 01/08/2002<BR></A><BR>
The issue we address is important even though it only arises because of a peculiarity in Kansas state law. While changes in Kansas law assure that we will never face this issue in the present context again. The issue facing this court is whether Mr. Henson may be sentenced and imprisoned for crimes for which they were not charged. Beem was charged and convicted in the District Court of Reno County. Henson was charged and convicted in the District Court of Miami County. Henson should have been charged with. Arguing that they were sentenced for crimes for which they were not charged. Appellants' petitions were consolidated for our review. <p> Appellants first seek certificates of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of their habeas petitions. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/022928.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the District Court in all respects. Are straightforward. Was apprehended by police shortly thereafter. Although Williams initially denied involvement in the bank robbery and explained his flight from the police as a reaction to having an illegal gun in the car he was apprehended with a paper bag containing $822. [H]e was in another neighborhood other than his own so he had carried it the night before so he had had it with him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510904.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Marquard argues primarily that his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways during the penalty phase of his trial. Murder of Stacey Willets Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of his girlfriend. After Willets's remains were discovered by hunters in the woods. Marquard and codefendant Michael Abshire were arrested. Are as follows: John Marquard. During a stop in South Carolina Marquard told Abshire that he was going to kill her because he was tired of arguing with her. She was still breathing. Marquard was arrested and confessed. Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. Marquard contended that he was present for the murder of Stacey Willets. Testified that it was Marquard who planned to kill and ultimately did kill Willets. As follows: [STATE ATTORNEY]: Where is the first place that you stopped? [ABSHIRE]: We stopped at a . . . like a convenience store/gas station in South Carolina when the sea bags that were on the trunk fell off.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964308.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the defendants' convictions and sentences. Because the predicate crime of violence or drug trafficking crime charged in the indictment is an essential element of a § 924(c) offense. Met Gerome and discovered that Gerome and Jeron were involved in drug trafficking in Greenville. Detective Robinson told Daniels that he was interested in purchasing large amounts of crack. Detective Robinson were waiting for the drug deal to consummate. The person he later discovered was Jeron told him to page him if he did want to purchase crack. Detective Robinson was then convinced that Jeron was also dealing crack and. Gerome told Detective Robinson that he was confident that he could supply Detective Robinson with the crack and a firearm the next day. Gerome indicated that he did not have the firearm Detective Robinson wanted to purchase because his supplier had not yet paged him. Because Detective Robinson knew he was about to arrest Gerome. Which was later identified as the firearm that Gerome had pointed at Detective Robinson during the September 7.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C31B00839883143688256B59000315DF/$file/9917261.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. and Richard Napoleon Brown were each convicted of petty theft. Each was sentenced to life without possibility of parole for 25 years. Because these cases are indistinguishable from Andrade in any material respect. We similarly hold that the California Court of Appeal decisions upholding 25 year to life sentences for petty theft were contrary to and unreasonable applications of clearly established Supreme Court law. All statutory citations are to the California Penal Code. 1986 A defendant with two or more prior
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0273p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a contract murder case with irreconcilable jury verdicts leading one defendant to be sentenced to death and another the defendant who initiated. Were charged with committing the murder of Ann Serafino and the 1 No. 03 3200 Getsy v. Santine was charged with hiring the other three defendants to kill Chuckie Serafino. Santine was sentenced to life imprisonment when a jury found him guilty of aggravated murder but not guilty of hiring Getsy to commit the murder. McNulty and Hudach were sentenced to life imprisonment after they were allowed to plead guilty. Expressed its dismay about the disproportionate nature of these inconsistent results: That Hudach received a lesser penalty than Getsy is not surprising Hudach did not enter the Serafino home. He was offered a plea bargain. Getsy was not. McNulty's case was not a case of the state's needing to secure testimony to obtain a conviction on a more culpable person. It is also troubling that Santine did not receive the death sentence even though he initiated the crime.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-3060a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Wilma A. He also indicated that the driver was upstairs in the apartment building and motioned toward the apartment being searched. 000 of counterfeit twenty and fifty dollar bills were inside a console between the driver's and passen ger's seats. In the glove compartment was a Maryland traffic ticket issued ten days earlier. The ticket named Juan Bowie and indicated he was driving a car with the same Tennessee plates. An additional $90 in counterfeit fifty and twenty dollar bills were inside the pocket of a black leather jacket in the trunk. The serial numbers on the counterfeit bills from the Pontiac's console and from the trunk were identical. This was not Bowie's first arrest for possession of counter feit money. He was driving a Chevrolet Celebrity owned by a third party. With him was James Toler. Did not have a valid driver's license. Inside the car was a bag containing a pair of Reebok shoes and Reebok socks as well as a receipt issued at 10:52 a.m. that day from a nearby Lady Footlocker store.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF0F355804EA9D228825732F005880EA/$file/0630406.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He contends that his sentence should be reversed because: (1) his prior conviction for assault with intent to commit rape is not a crime of violence. (2) the district court improperly found that he was subject to a prior conviction and that he had been deported subsequent to that conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is a crime of violence under United States Sentencing Guidelines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2266_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Abu Hashish is a Jordanian who originally was admitted to the United States on February 5. 1 he was sentenced to one year probation and was required to pay restitution. Abu Hashish again was charged with theft. Abu Hashish was given a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-16434.opn.html">MCCOY V. UNITED STATES (9/25/2001, NO. 00-16434)<BR></A><BR>
We hold that McCoy's <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-16434.opn.html">MCCOY V. UNITED STATES (9/25/2001, NO. 00-16434)<BR></A><BR>
We hold that McCoy's <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/03-3030a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the brief for appellant. With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the issue of whether the district court committed plain error when it held that the appellant's prior conviction for first degree sexual abuse of a ward was a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Andrews was arrested. He was convicted in November 1999 in the District of Columbia Superior Court of first degree sexual abuse of a ward. Andrews was sentenced to two to six years imprisonment. He was also fired from the MPD. 3 In January 2002. Andrews was charged with false personation of a police officer and being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Andrews was convicted on the weapons charge but was cleared of impersonating a police officer. It was his sentencing on this conviction that gave rise to the current appeal. The presentence investigation report (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3222a.html">USA V. CHILDRESS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984628.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 2 the reference to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0266p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that Veach was a career offender and thus sentenced him to an effective prison term of 80 months. Because we are remanding this case for a new trial. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND There is no dispute concerning the relevant facts underlying the defendant's convictions. The record establishes that Veach's automobile was involved in a collision with another vehicle in Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. They suspected that the defendant was intoxicated and performed various field sobriety tests and a portable breath test on Veach that confirmed their initial impressions. Ranger Mullin was forced to struggle with Veach. I will. Veach was later transported to a local hospital for treatment of a facial cut.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C3F73260DCF45DAB882572250082682E/$file/0610015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: Pedro Martinez Martinez pled guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after being deported following a conviction for a felony and was sentenced to forty six months in federal prison. This was not the first time Martinez Martinez had been found residing in this country illegally. MartinezMartinez was deported in 2002 following a one year state prison sentence in Arizona for discharging a firearm at a residential structure. Was detained by border patrol agents. Was again deported. Where we found that California's statute barring the discharge of a firearm at an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-4049.htm">98-4049 -- MCCANN V. ROSQUIST -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR>
Is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0110p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The relevant facts surrounding their separate offenses and their respective sentencings are as follows. beyond the initial directive. We believe the original twentyone year old age limit is sufficiently clear to overcome an argument from silence. Our hesitance to infer too much from mere
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0045p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rose was convicted of conspiring to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine mixture. Estrada were charged in a three count Indictment. Rose and all five co conspirators were charged with conspiring to distribute five hundred grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. Estrada were charged with distributing fifty grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. Estrada were charged with knowingly and intentionally carrying a firearm during and in relation to the drug trafficking offenses set out in Counts One and Two. A sentencing hearing was held on January 4. A judgment was entered that same day. There are discrepancies between the descriptions of the charges in Counts One and Three as stated in the Superseding Indictment and as stated in the plea agreement. He was of the opinion that there were no meritorious grounds for an appeal. Rose's counsel raised the issues of whether the district court erred by including the additional two pounds of methamphetamine when determining Rose's offense level and whether the The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 because Rose was charged with offenses against the laws of the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Peter D. The claim at issue in this case was brought under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyOTktY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3299-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At which he was found guilty on one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371. 541 U.S. 36 The jury was unable to reach a verdict on substantive charges of bank robbery. (2) the receipt into evidence of items seized during a warrantless search of the apartment where Snype was arrested violated the Fourth Amendment. (a) was not supported by the record evidence. (b) violated his Sixth Amendment right to have findings of fact resulting in a higher maximum sentence made by a jury rather than the trial court. (c) was the result of an unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant. We conclude that the alleged errors are without merit or. B. The Robbers' Shootout with the Police While the robbery was in effect. Which was in fact responding to a radio alert about the crime. Because Partlow and Snype were masked. No teller or bank customer was able to identify them as the robbers. Shots were fired from that vehicle at the officers. The four confederates drove to Telephone records showed that all five conspirators were in constant contact with one another in the hours during the July 6.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-3120.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Others are targets of an ongoing federal grand jury investigation. Intervenor have not been permitted to view. <p> The district court conducted a hearing on the motions on February 24. Which was furthered by the aid of Roe and Doe. Doe] were providing joint representation to [The Hospital and to Intervenor].
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FA9E7EE86405D3948825703D007A68C2/$file/0410184.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is AMENDED as follows. Footnote 8 states: Because the sentencing enhancement we address is based only on the fact of a prior conviction. Our decision is unaffected by the Supreme Court's recent 8172 UNITED STATES v. Footnote 8 is deleted in its entirety and replaced it with the following language: Because Cortez Arias waived all appellate rights except for the sole issue of whether his prior conviction was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0523n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Thomas Calloway was charged in a four count indictment with robbing four banks in the Cleveland area between December 2003 and April 2004. Calloway pled guilty without a plea agreement to all four counts and was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment. Section 4B1.1 because he did not have two or more predicate crime of violence felony convictions. Having reaffirmed that the 1987 aggravated assault and the 1997 burglary were crimes of violence. Were predicate crimes of violence. The district court stated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/57F2D5A7363326AD88256DD500797D66/$file/0270317.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended. A drug offense may qualify . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0353a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lloyd was sentenced to consecutive terms of fortysix and eighty four months. Lloyd filed a timely appeal arguing that the second count of the indictment was insufficient or duplicitous. Certain evidentiary rulings made during his trial were an abuse of discretion. This decision was originally issued as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994060.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(3) that his life sentence for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine must be set aside because it is impossible to tell from the jury's verdict whether he was convicted for conspiracy to distribute crack or heroin. Venue in that district was improper. Where it then was cooked into crack.). Which were substantial. The organization was making weekly deliveries of crack to Albany and Baltimore while it looked for still other opportunities to expand. A man named Dean Beckford was the head of the Poison Clan. Bowens was Beckford's confederate. Other members of the organization testified that receiving a command from Bowens was tantamount to receiving a command from Beckford and that Bowens was Beckford's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0593n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lloyd was sentenced to consecutive terms of fortysix and eighty four months. Lloyd filed a timely appeal arguing that the second count of the indictment was insufficient or duplicitous. Certain evidentiary rulings made during his trial were an abuse of discretion. Which was strapped together in 100 bill bunches. Into a blue pillowcase he was carrying. The police determined that Lloyd was a suspect and apprehended him. When Lloyd was taken into custody his shoes and clothes were secured as evidence. The sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed de novo. The first is using or carrying a firearm
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/96-9475.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY (4/26/1999, NO. 96-9475)<BR></A><BR>
This case concerns whether the defendant adequately was informed of the interstate commerce element of his crime. Was arrested in Atlanta. Both weapons were loaded. He subsequently was indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924. </P> <P> Mosley's federal trial commenced at 9:30 A.M. on August 26. A jury was selected. Manufacturer of one of the handguns that Mosley possessed when he was arrested. . . . that he will try somehow to back out of it down the road.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054908p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court's decision was predicated largely upon its conclusion that the crime with which Bowers was charged. Is a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(g) and (f)(1)(A). Section 3142(f)(1)(A) requires a Court to hold a detention hearing upon motion by the government if the defendant is charged with a crime of violence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1261p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thomas Price was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania of armed bank robbery. Price was charged with violating this provision in the district court. The government is not required to show that the defendant actually displayed or fired the weapon. The government is required. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was under defendant's control at the time the crime of violence was committed. Even though there is no proof that he actually had the firearm in his physical possession. That his action was willful and voluntarily taken and that he had knowledge that a firearm was to be used in the bank robbery. The two issues regarding this instruction are. Whether having a firearm available to assist is sufficient to meet the second element of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/99-3053a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the memorandum and reply were Wilma A. With him on the memorandum were A. Circuit Judge: The United States appeals from a district court order concluding that convicted felons who possess firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 922(g) (1994) have not by that act alone committed a crime of violence warrant ing pretrial detention. A magistrate ordered Singleton detained pending trial because he was charged with a crime of violence. The district court concluded that a felon in possession offense under s 922(g) is not a crime of violence authorizing pretrial detention. Detention until trial is relatively difficult to impose. Detention is not an option. Assuming a hearing is appropriate. The judicial officer must consider several enu merated factors to determine whether conditions short of detention will
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1949p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It also held that the defense of legal impossibility does not pertain to the attempt and conspiracy crimes with which the defendants are charged. We will affirm the court's holding regarding the applicability of the defense of legal impossibility. Will reverse its discovery order and remand for a review of other asserted defenses to the crimes in the indictment. The factual summary that follows is based entirely on the as yet unproven allegations in the July 1997 indictment. Because this is an interlocutory appeal. The record is not complete. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McClennen & Fish were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Defendant was indicted in two counts: Count One. The only error we find is the acquittal. The seriousness with which Congress viewed this conduct is emphasized by the fact 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/03-2025.htm">03-2025 -- U.S. V. LUCIO-LUCIO -- 10/28/2003<BR></A><BR>
<em> </em>his offense level was subject to some degree of enhancement under U.S.S.G.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2376.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-3113a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Hill was arrest ed by police after he fled from his car carrying a gun following a traffic stop for allegedly failing to display a Vehicle Identification Number (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/98-2314.htm">98-2314 -- U.S. V. ZAMORA -- 07/21/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/97B1B319005B2CA18825708C00190DFC/$file/0410184.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is AMENDED as follows. CORTEZ ARIAS Because Cortez Arias waived all appellate rights except for the sole issue of whether his prior conviction was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0302p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Aubrey Shante Amos was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Defense counsel conceded that the prior convictions for reckless endangerment and for cocaine possession were predicate offenses under the ACCA. Are inherently dangerous and lack a useful purpose. Held that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042804p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B8CB9CF09D126AA888256A9C005AC892/$file/0099000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: William Charles Payton was convicted in 1982 of the rape and murder of Pamela Montgomery. He was sentenced to death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F379EA92BD116E6D88256E5A00707C1A/$file/0099000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: William Charles Payton was convicted in 1982 of the rape and murder of Pamela Montgomery. He was sentenced to death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043685np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will deny the petition.1 Okocci Remoi is a native and citizen of Uganda. Remoi was a student at Rutgers University until he was expelled in 1990. That a third 1995 conviction under the same New Jersey statute constituted an aggravated felony because it was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) (one Board member dissented). The judicial district in which Remoi was in custody at the time he filed the petition. While his appeal was pending. We have determined that such pending appeals are converted to petitions for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the matter is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. The petition was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Held that Remoi had not identified any constitutional errors or errors of law in the BIA's determination that he was ineligible for withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). We now treat the matter as a petition for review.3 Although we are partially barred from reviewing a petition for review filed by an alien removable for having committed certain criminal offenses.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/96-9475.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY (4/26/1999, NO. 96-9475)<BR></A><BR>
This case concerns whether the defendant adequately was informed of the interstate commerce element of his crime. Was arrested in Atlanta. Both weapons were loaded. He subsequently was indicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924. </P> <P> Mosley's federal trial commenced at 9:30 A.M. on August 26. A jury was selected. Manufacturer of one of the handguns that Mosley possessed when he was arrested. . . . that he will try somehow to back out of it down the road.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/02-3073a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E5F3A673466BE058825734D0052AF1C/$file/0399010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-6320.htm">98-6320 -- U.S. V. MCKISSICK -- 02/24/2000<BR></A><BR>
Delmar Anton Zeigler were arrested following a shooting at a nightclub in Oklahoma City. Zeigler was convicted of the drug trafficking charges in Counts Three and Four. The Defendants were tried jointly. Zeigler was sentenced to life without parole for each Count with the sentences to run concurrently. McKissick guilty on all three counts with which he was charged. McKissick was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment on Count One and 240 months imprisonment on Count Three. McKissick was also sentenced to five years imprisonment on Count Five. These appeals are addressed simultaneously in this opinion. The suspect vehicle was a 1970s model green Chevrolet Impala and the suspects were reported to be black males. Zeigler was handcuffed and placed in Officer Thomas's patrol car. McKissick later admitted the car was his. <p> While Mr. McKissick was in the emergency room reception area. Who was also at the hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound. Simpkins further testified he was in a van with some other men in the nightclub parking lot when they encountered Mr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-3154.htm">01-3154 -- U.S. V. BATTLE -- 05/08/2002<BR></A><BR>
924(c)(1) and (j)(1). <p> He seeks reversal of the Hobbs Act violation on the ground that the robbery of a local convenience store is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In denying him an additional reduction for acceptance of responsibility. <p> We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude that the Hobbs Act is violated even if the robbery of a convenience store does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. We also hold that the sentence imposed by the court was consistent with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/96-5421.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. VARON (5/14/1999, NO. 96-5421)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The central issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court clearly erred in denying a drug courier who imported 512.4 grams of 85 percent pure heroin from Colombia into the United States a two point downward adjustment for her minor role in the offense under § 3B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That there was in fact ample evidence in the record to support its determination that the defendant did not play a minor role in the offense. We reaffirm our longstanding view that a district court's determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a minor role adjustment under the Guidelines is a finding of fact that will be reviewed only for clear error. That is. The Guidelines and our case precedent plainly require the district court to undertake this method of analysis in every case where a role adjustment is at issue. <EM>See</EM> U.S.S.G. Where the record evidence is sufficient. Suspecting that she was an internal carrier of narcotics. De Varon was carrying $2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0167p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We find it to have been impermissibly amended and thus also reverse his conviction on Count IV. Combs then exited the car and told Eversole that he was going to meet a man who would supply him with the pills. The police found that he was carrying a loaded .22 caliber pistol and many OxyContin and Dialudid pills. The finder of fact could not have convicted unde r either p rong of the statute. The Tenth Circuit held that the indictment contained two distinct offenses for which the jury could have found the defendant guilty. There was sufficient evidence to convict defendant on this charg e. The two prongs of the statute are separated by the disjunctive
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQwMjYtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4026-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McCargo (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1691p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kenneth McBroom pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Finding that McBroom was able. The district court concluded that McBroom was ineligible for a downward departure. We believe that the district court could have considered the possibility that McBroom suffered from a volitional impairment which prevented him from controlling his behavior or conforming it to the law. We will. McBroom detailed his abusive childhood in an uncontradicted affidavit submitted to the district court: All outward appearances of my family were positive but deceiving. . . . I have vague recollections of being a young boy and having him bathe me. I suppose I was four or five at the time. I have clear memories of the abuse from about the age of ten onward. . . . There were also a few instances in which my father took Polaroid pictures of me naked. . . . Until I was 15 years old. 3 McBroom Aff. McBroom attended law school and was married. He was asked to testify at his father's trial on charges that his father sexually molested a neighbor's son.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/373C283753E753B188256AFD0017B922/$file/9799031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases are the predominant ones. He also asserts that (4) the 1978 California death penalty statute under which he was convicted and sentenced is unconstitutional. We agree with the courts that have already reviewed this case that. Regardless of whether the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the guilt phase was deficient. We hold that the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the penalty phase was deficient and that Mayfield suffered prejudice as a result. The state court shall conduct a new sentencing proceeding to determine whether Mayfield is to be sentenced to death or to life without parole. The car was repossessed because of delinquent payments. Byron was in possession of the car for only three days before it disappeared from the Popes' driveway. Mayfield and two of his friends were arrested in the car a day later. Mayfield pled guilty to one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle and was released pending a sentencing hearing. He was told that he would be sentenced to one year in jail.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An excessive force claim is subsumed in an unlawful arrest claim. We reject the notion that an excessive force claim is subsumed in an unlawful arrest claim in the facts presented by this case. These Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment were denied without prejudice pending further discovery. Covington were dispatched to Plaintiffs' residence. Rick Cortez was asleep when he was suddenly awakened by noises and lights in his fenced (1) Plaintiff Rick Cortez is actually the husband of the babysitter Tina Cortez. <hr> back yard. He repeatedly inquired what was going on. Placed him in the back of a patrol car where he was subjected to questioning. Tina Cortez was awakened by her husband as he got out of bed. The officer placed her in a separate patrol car where she was subjected to questioning. Miranda warnings are required for custodial interrogation occasioned by an arrest. Rick Cortez also informed the officers that his handcuffs were too tight and caused excessive pain. Despite his declaration and the fact that Rick Cortez supposedly was not under arrest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/019004p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Antuan Bronshtein was convicted in a Pennsylvania court for first degree murder and sentenced to death. The District Court found merit in some but not all of Bronshtein's claims and ordered that a writ of habeas corpus be granted unless Bronshtein was retried within a specified time. Antuan Bronshtein was tried in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County on charges stemming from the robbery and shooting death of Alexander Gutman. These prints were later identified as Bronshtein's. He was convicted for that offense. Bronshtein admitted that he was acquainted with him and that he knew that he owned a jewelry store. He and Bronshtein were riding in Bronshtein's car on Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia when Bronshtein said that he had killed a man in a jewelry store
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/96-5421.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. VARON (5/14/1999, NO. 96-5421)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The central issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court clearly erred in denying a drug courier who imported 512.4 grams of 85 percent pure heroin from Colombia into the United States a two point downward adjustment for her minor role in the offense under § 3B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That there was in fact ample evidence in the record to support its determination that the defendant did not play a minor role in the offense. We reaffirm our longstanding view that a district court's determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a minor role adjustment under the Guidelines is a finding of fact that will be reviewed only for clear error. That is. The Guidelines and our case precedent plainly require the district court to undertake this method of analysis in every case where a role adjustment is at issue. <EM>See</EM> U.S.S.G. Where the record evidence is sufficient. Suspecting that she was an internal carrier of narcotics. De Varon was carrying $2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/031671P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After finding that Chanmouny was removable as a non immigrant who failed to maintain the conditions of his visas. Chanmouny applied for suspension of deportation under the law in effect at the time of his application.1 An alien who is deportable may be granted suspension of deportation if the alien (1) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date of such application. (2) proves that during such period he was and is a person of good moral character. (3) is a person whose deportation would result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his spouse. Or child who is a citizen of the United States or a lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) (1994). A person is not of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CC1781412D82A76288256AA1005C0BD5/$file/9935881.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts giving rise to the present action are tortuous and the truth may yet be obscured. Former director and executive vice president of Gulf. 2 Certain corporate relationships are central to the resulting real estate transactions. The basic relationships are as follows: Gulf wholly owned Gulfpac Ltd. At issue in this case is the contention that Felpark and Kingsley were shell corporations controlled by the Rowland Group. Which were used to siphon money out of the New Zealand real estate transactions to the benefit of the Rowland Group. 10197 purchase and sale contracts one contract involved Felpark's sale of nineteen properties. One of the properties acquired under the Felpark contract was an office building known as the Unisys House. The Unisys House was owned by a corporation known as Sunflower Services Ltd. Which was owned by Citibank. The Unisys House and the Sunflower ordinary shares were transferred to a Gulf subsidiary. The preferred shares of Sunflower were transferred to Kingsley.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B739A308119BE66A88256FE7005C3993/$file/0410184.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a conviction for a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0412p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Armstead Page 2 further proceedings and resentencing because the present record does not justify the district court's conclusion that Armstead's prior conviction was for a crime of violence. I. BACKGROUND There was substantial evidence before the jury that: Early on the morning of November 22. Kelvin and Toni Butler were awakened by a disturbance at their Memphis. Standing outside their window was Armstead. He was referring to the Butlers' neighbor. As the police were arriving. Advised that Armstead was a convicted felon. Was not a conviction for a crime of violence within the meaning of § 4B1.2. The court finds that in this case all of the underlying facts support the notion that this was a crime of violence. Reversal is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1739.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Homan</U> was on brief for appellant Vincent Marino.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D2188C8CBCD84D688256E5A00707C2C/$file/9935881.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts giving rise to the present action are tortuous and the truth may yet be obscured. Former director and executive vice president of Gulf. 2 Certain corporate relationships are central to the resulting real estate transactions. The basic relationships are as follows: Gulf wholly owned Gulfpac Ltd. At issue in this case is the contention that Felpark and Kingsley were shell corporations controlled by the Rowland Group. Which were used to siphon money out of the New Zealand real estate transactions to the benefit of the Rowland Group. 10197 purchase and sale contracts one contract involved Felpark's sale of nineteen properties. One of the properties acquired under the Felpark contract was an office building known as the Unisys House. The Unisys House was owned by a corporation known as Sunflower Services Ltd. Which was owned by Citibank. The Unisys House and the Sunflower ordinary shares were transferred to a Gulf subsidiary. The preferred shares of Sunflower were transferred to Kingsley.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></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-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/918FF925C122923988256E5A00707D3E/$file/9799031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases are the predominant ones. He also asserts that (4) the 1978 California death penalty statute under which he was convicted and sentenced is unconstitutional. We agree with the courts that have already reviewed this case that. Regardless of whether the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the guilt phase was deficient. We hold that the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the penalty phase was deficient and that Mayfield suffered prejudice as a result. The state court shall conduct a new sentencing proceeding to determine whether Mayfield is to be sentenced to death or to life without parole. The car was repossessed because of delinquent payments. Byron was in possession of the car for only three days before it disappeared from the Popes' driveway. Mayfield and two of his friends were arrested in the car a day later. Mayfield pled guilty to one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle and was released pending a sentencing hearing. He was told that he would be sentenced to one year in jail.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/034044p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Poellnitz argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that he committed a state crime. (2) the delay between 1 the filing of the supervised release petition and the supervised release violation hearing was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041815P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue in this case is whether Iowa's offense of Operating While Intoxicated (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-9540.htm">99-9540 -- GARCIA V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 01/19/2001<BR></A><BR>
Tapia Garcia appeals a Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration judge's ruling that Petitioner is removable as a result of his conviction for commission of an aggravated felony. After concluding Petitioner is an alien subject to removal for commission of an aggravated felony. Was convicted in Idaho for driving under the influence (DUI) in violation of section 18 8004(5) of the Idaho Code. Which provides for removal of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0181n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thompson was sentenced to life imprisonment plus three years of consecutive incarceration. This Court granted a certificate of appealability only on the issue of whether Thompson was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Lance Carter were indicted on one count of Aggravated Murder for the murder of Junius Chaney. Thompson was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for aggravated murder and to three years on a firearm specification. Evidence was presented at trial that Houston shot Chaney with a shotgun provided by Thompson. Evidence was also presented that Thompson. Who was on probation for drug trafficking and was concerned about drug trafficking in the area. Was heard to say. Thompson's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals. Thompson then filed a motion for post conviction relief which was denied by the trial court. Thompson was granted a certificate of appealability on the issue that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel failed to object to erroneous jury instructions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/96-3166a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. The Sentencing Commission has thus acknowledged that a defendant's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue today is the constitutionality of several zoning and public nudity ordinances adopted by the City of Daytona Beach (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416502.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that possession of a firearm by a felon is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1321.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which resulted from the court's conclusion that his prior conviction for third degree assault in Colorado was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994088.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When Stand was approximately 18. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BAF0DF04C873FDE88256E5A00707D36/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/043461P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jordan argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court made findings of fact regarding his criminal history and that his sentence is unreasonable in light of United States v. A confidential informant reported that Smith and Jordan were selling narcotics in Waterloo. Jordan arrived home as the search of his house was about The Honorable Linda R. He was witnessed turning away from the house and discarding a baggie. Which was later discovered to contain marijuana. Trial deadlines were established pursuant to the district court's Trial Scheduling and Management Order (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114680.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was after this case was argued. We conclude that the district court's evidentiary rulings were neither an abuse of discretion. We reaffirm the basic principle that an appellate court must afford the district court's gatekeeping determinations
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1531p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Askari rests his argument on the facts that the unarmed bank robbery was non violent and that he has a well documented history of serious psychiatric illness. Askari's mental illness at the time he committed the bank robbery is not at issue. The district court found that Askari was not mentally competent. Certified that Askari had recovered and was again mentally competent. The facts regarding the bank robbery are also not at issue. He then went to the window where bank teller Ellie Ishizaki was working and said.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep10/03-40781-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Partida and Vigil were convicted of various crimes in connection with their drug trafficking participation. While Partida was a sheriff's officer in Hidalgo County. The two men were even roommates. Partida resigned from the sheriff's office and was hired as a patrol officer with the local police department in the City of Donna. Quint anilla was identified by the government in connection with the transportation of about 6. Which was seized at the Border Patrol checkpoint in Falfurrias. Driving an empty vehicle which Partida was told would be carrying marijuana loads through Donna. A staged event was arranged for Partida to follow a red Suburban through Donna while Partida was under the belief that he would be protecting the transport of 300 pounds of marijuana.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2199.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that Bryant was subject to an elevated base offense level under the federal sentencing guidelines due to his prior conviction for the crime of escape. Which the district court found was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/019012p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm.1 The district court also held that: the instructions during the penalty phase violated the holding in Mills v. Defense counsel was ineffective during the sentencing phase. That Laird was denied due process of law during the penalty phase when he was forced to appear before the jury in shackles. The court held that Laird was also entitled to habeas relief because the prosecutor improperly commented on Laird's failure to testify in his own behalf during the penalty phase. Milano's bloodied body was discovered in a wooded area the next evening. Were sufficiently deep. His neck had been lacerated with such force that he was almost decapitated. Laird and Chester were jointly tried for Milano's murder. Both defendants took the witness stand and admitted being present when Milano was killed. That petition was denied. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was careful to distinguish between
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-5190.htm">02-5190 -- U.S. V. ROWLAND -- 02/06/2004<BR></A><BR>
Rowland was charged in a one count indictment with possession of a firearm and ammunition after former conviction of a felony. Rowland pleaded guilty to the charge. <p> The probation officer concluded that the sexual battery conviction and the felonious pointing of a weapon conviction were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/022836P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GonzalezLopez argues that his prior state court conviction for Automobile Homicide was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/59EC7C574037890B8825721F00839A3D/$file/0410504.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A substituted amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be allowed. Arreola was seated in the second of three rows of seats. Two of Arreola's associates were seated in the front seats. A confidential informant was seated with Arreola. Arreola and his two associates were arrested. The handgun was positioned such that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED3D8E64B695AF1D88256AF7007FBE7A/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B0675594A6079778825715B00838AB5/$file/0410504.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arreola was seated in the second of three rows of seats. Two of Arreola's associates were seated in the front seats. A confidential informant was seated with Arreola. Arreola and his two associates were arrested. The handgun was positioned such that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/94-6178.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. PATTON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Jr. was convicted of possession of firearms after conviction of a felony. A defendant reaches career offender status if he or she (1) is at least eighteen years of age at the time of the offense. (2) commits a felony that is a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. Mandated that the instant offenses for felon in possession and possession of an unregistered firearm are crimes of violence for purposes of determining career offender status under
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1194_046.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government released Ali from custody shortly before this case was argued. So the habeas detention challenge is moot and we review only the decision of the BIA ordering his removal to Somalia. I. Background Ali was born in 1980 in Baidoa. Ali's hometown of Baidoa is located in the Bay region. If Ali were returned to the areas of Somalia controlled by his Rahanweyn clan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul19/02-40917-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellant Luis Enrique Insaulgarat (Insaulgarat) was found guilty of one count of possession marihuana. with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of The offense was alleged to have been committed on or On February 22. Insaulgarat was imprisonment. He then picked up another shipment in Michigan that was to be transported to Techno Trim. That he was to transport a load of air conditioning equipment from Laser Forwarding. This equipment was scheduled for delivery in Miami by 9:00 a.m. on August 22. Insaulgarat took his now empty Insaulgarat is a Cuban citizen. The seal number was recorded on the bill of lading. Which the agent noticed did not have a seal on it. Two trailers were requested to haul the air conditioning equipment to Lennox of Miami. After Insaulgarat arrived it was discovered that the merchandise would fit into one trailer. It was advised that it would not be needed. A male voice on the other end asked who was speaking and then hung up. 3 3 2 At trial. That he was therefore late with the delivery of the cargo from Michigan because his tractor's engine kept overheating during the trip.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug02/02-40917-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellant Luis Enrique Insaulgarat (Insaulgarat) was found guilty of one count of possession marihuana. with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of The offense was alleged to have been committed on or On February 22. Insaulgarat was imprisonment. He then picked up another shipment in Michigan that was to be transported to Techno Trim. That he was to transport a load of air conditioning equipment from Laser Forwarding. This equipment was scheduled for delivery in Miami by 9:00 a.m. on August 22. Insaulgarat took his now empty 1 Insaulgarat is a Cuban citizen. The seal number was recorded on the bill of lading. Which the agent noticed did not have a seal on it. Two trailers were requested to haul the air conditioning equipment to Lennox of Miami. After Insaulgarat arrived it was discovered that the merchandise would fit into one trailer. It was advised that it would not be needed. A male voice on the other end asked who was speaking and then hung up. 3 3 2 At trial. That he was therefore late with the delivery of the cargo from Michigan because his tractor's engine kept overheating during the trip.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A154BC3CDF6910A88256FFE0082116B/$file/0372028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Valencia was convicted of felony1 unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 18. Who was more than three years younger than he. Our jurisdiction is controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Valencia also argued that he should have been allowed to apply for an adjustment of status based on his marriage to a United States citizen. We will not consider the merits of this argument. He was sentenced to five years in state prison. The imposition of his sentence was suspended. He was placed on five years probation. It was charged as a felony. 1 VALENCIA v. GONZALES 5189 Valencia was charged in the notice to appear with being removable as an aggravated felon for committing sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). The cases deciding whether a violation of California Penal Code § 261.5(c) is an aggravated felony usually decide the case by evaluating whether it constitutes sexual abuse of a minor in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A).2 But here. 1149 (9th Cir. 2003) (conviction under Virginia law for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/908A592B0549D45D88256F3300766BDC/$file/0370217.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/94-6178.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. PATTON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Jr. was convicted of possession of firearms after conviction of a felony. A defendant reaches career offender status if he or she (1) is at least eighteen years of age at the time of the offense. (2) commits a felony that is a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. Mandated that the instant offenses for felon in possession and possession of an unregistered firearm are crimes of violence for purposes of determining career offender status under
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B70447A4FB222A4882570840079DD1E/$file/0430202.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He contends that he was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment and that the district court erred in using a preponderance of the evidence standard when it found that he discharged a firearm. He stated that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5DA6C8399C93047688257145006F0187/$file/0410632.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Detective Michael Castaneda was acting undercover on the Internet as a 14 year old girl using the screen name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/35DDC94CCBB04EEB882571720077AC0D/$file/0310059.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted for entering the United States illegally in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lopez Solis argues that his conviction for statutory rape was not for
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/951996P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stephanie Cannon and Keith Anthony Cannon were convicted of various drug and firearm conduct offenses. in They of challenge their the validity of their and convictions. A reasonable jury could have found the following. An undercover officer with the West Central Minnesota Drug Task Force. were videotaped. When the parties were introduced by a confidential informant. Defendants sold cocaine base to Agent Sherbrooke and told him they were interested in acquiring firearms. again in Alexandria within a week. Defendants sold more cocaine base to Sherbrooke less than a week later. interested in When Sherbrooke asked Defendants whether they were still obtaining firearms. Defendants again indicated their The parties made arrangements to meet The first transaction was recorded on audio tape. He explained that the When Sherbrooke deal would have to take place in North Dakota. Because there was an arrest warrant out for his supplier in Minnesota. kidded Defendants about their reasons for wanting the weapons. Defendants said they were
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0590n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Efren Mendoza Mendoza (
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0059p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 924(c)(1) is the federal statute providing for mandatory additional sentences for
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0082C13109CEBC3588256E5A00707DB1/$file/0115118.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
If the sheriff is a county actor. Therefore that the county is subject to section 1983 liability. Appellee argued that the county is liable under Monell for his injuries caused by the deputies' execution of the Sheriff's policies on arrests and crime investigations because the Sheriff is a final policymaker for the county. A county is subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if its policies. The parties agree that the sheriff is the relevant policymaker. The question is whether he is a policymaker on behalf of the state or the county. If he is a policymaker for the state. Our analysis is governed by the analytical framework set out in McMillian v. That we must inquire
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1286p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question of the degree of jury unanimity required by the CCE statute is a difficult one. Other courts of appeals have disagreed with Echeverri's resolution. We must also decide whether the district court's failure to give the proper unanimity instruction was harmless error. These convictions do not themselves show unanimous agreement that the same three violations were sufficiently related to each other to constitute a continuing series. The evidence that the jury must have credited to find Edmonds guilty of the predicate violations unequivocally established that all charged violations were related. No rational jury could unanimously find Edmonds guilty of the predicate offenses without unanimously finding that the offenses were related to each other. I. Facts and Procedural History The facts of this case are fully set out in the earlier panel opinion. The organization was based in Los Angeles. ] that in some way he was causing or attempting to cause the distribution of cocaine and heroin as charged in Count 1 of the indictment or in other counts charged in the indictment.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/001539P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was therefore subject to a consecutive term of five years in prison under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) & (c)(1)(D)(ii). Believing it was subsumed by the greater ten year drug sentence. § 924(c)(1) provides that the minimum sentences set forth therein shall apply
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2052.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Krupp was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Unanimously agreed that
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/953175P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted by a jury of three counts of armed bank robbery. Cleophus Davis was arrested and charged with all three robberies. He fired a shot but no one was injured. Ethel Griffin had been in her car in the plaza parking lot where the Mid City Bank is located. (There was testimony that it takes three to five minutes to travel by car to this location from the Mid City Bank on 74th Street.). Teller Susan Grow testified that the robber was an African American male she could see his skin through the ski mask eye holes. She estimated that he was approximately 5'5'' to 5'8'' tall and weighed approximately 140 pounds. Another employee testified that the robber was approximately 5'7'' or 5'8'' tall with a thin build. Fresh shoe prints were found in the snow along the path where the robber fled. An Omaha police senior crime laboratory technician testified that the prints found near the Streamliner Credit Union were similar to those found near the scene of the first robbery at the 74th Street Mid City Bank. John Coats was in his car at a stoplight on the intersection of 42nd Street and Farnum.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/969007.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have considered each of Ferguson's contentions. We will affirm the district court's order. The court concluded
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6545D465E06283DB8825708200801E34/$file/0399007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fletcher *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Mitchell Carlton Sims was convicted of the first degree murder of John Harrigan. He was sentenced to death. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) does not apply to the merits of Sims's appeal because his federal petition was filed before AEDPA's effective date. Were violated by the admission of confessions obtained in a custodial setting after he invoked his rights to counsel and silence. (3) whether his right to an impartial jury was violated when a member of his jury met with a member of Padgett's jury and discussed writing a book about their experiences. (4) whether his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the prosecutor's closing argument in the penalty phase about factor (k). (6) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to object to comments that Sims argues violated Griffin v. (7) whether reversal is required on account of cumulative error. Sims was hired as a delivery driver by another Domino's.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0222p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were
</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/99/99-1492.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Terry Young were collectively convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Cox and Young were also convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Mohammad Mansoori was convicted of engaging in monetary transactions involving funds derived from criminal activity. 99 3623 was convicted of money laundering. Who were engaged in narcotics trafficking had organized a drug deal that. Was assigned to transfer the cocaine from White to another TVL member. Once Bronson was in possession of the cocaine. Mohammad Mansoori was not a member of TVL. Choice were all members of TVL. Was in charge of the drug sales. Mansoori made several large cash payments to contractors for a house he was having built in Highland Park. He used Young's money to make the purchase and understood that the house was actually Young's. An IRS agent testified that he did not think that Young could have purchased the property with his legitimate sources of income. The defendants were using to conduct their narcotics business.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/969007.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have considered each of Ferguson's contentions. We will affirm the district court's order. The court concluded
</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.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-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024833.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Joseph Wayne Pratt was convicted on five drug trafficking counts: one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Pratt contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions on the three attempt counts and that. (2) that his right to due process was violated when the district court permitted a government agent to enter the jury room to
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D341FEE5F698B32B88256B2F007634CE/$file/0115118.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
If the sheriff is a county actor. Therefore that the county is subject to section 1983 liability. Appellee argued that the county is liable under Monell for his injuries caused by the deputies' execution of the Sheriff's policies on arrests and crime investigations because the Sheriff is a final policymaker for the county. A county is subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if its policies. The parties agree that the sheriff is the relevant policymaker. The question is whether he is a policymaker on behalf of the state or the county. If he is a policymaker for the state. Our analysis is governed by the analytical framework set out in McMillian v. That we must inquire
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96C02A8F3CC15C1288256F5000818DCF/$file/0272597.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether an alien defendant is removable for conviction of an offense that
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-4153.htm">03-4153 -- U.S. V. ROGERS -- 06/15/2004<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</strong></center> <p> The district court concluded that the United States was not entitled to an 18 U.S.C.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1965.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. This is a case of first SELYA. Where the offense of conviction is the offense of being a convicted felon in knowing possession of a firearm. The conviction is not for a
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0458p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendant in the case at bar was charged with and convicted of several crimes under an indictment one count of which improperly combined elements of both § 924(c) offenses. At trial the jury was given instructions that tended to compound the confusion. These errors cast substantial doubt on whether the defendant was unanimously convicted of an offense criminalized by § 924(c). Under separate counts of the indictment the defendant was convicted on felon in possession and drug trafficking charges. Those convictions will be affirmed. The case will be remanded for resentencing. Was apprehended. Was instructed to get on the ground. Savoires was permitted to stand. The packaging suggested to the police that the drugs were intended for distribution. Inside the house officers found a loaded shotgun beside a couch in what was described as the dining room. Or ammunition were discovered in the house. Among the questions and answers were the following:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/001428.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Immigration and Naturalization Service (the
</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//feb95/93-4764.html">UNITED STATES V. SPELL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Arguing that the May 1980 burglary conviction was not a
</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/feb95/93-4764.html">UNITED STATES V. SPELL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Arguing that the May 1980 burglary conviction was not a
</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/10circuit/nov96/95-1285.wpd.html">DAVIS V. EXECUTIVE DIR. OF DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS<BR></A><BR>
Davis was not abandoned by his attorney in the closing argument of the penalty phase of his trial. (3) the statutory aggravators presented to the jury were either valid or. Were harmless. The tragic facts concerning this crime have been fully set out in the state court opinions affirming Mr. Fincham were tried separately. Craig Truman was appointed Mr. (1) While this appeal was pending. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the conspiracy and second degree kidnaping convictions.(2) The penalty phase for the murder convictions began the day after the guilt/innocence phase concluded. The jury was presented with six aggravating factors and eight mitigating factors. The jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that death was the proper punishment. Davis was also charged with being an habitual offender. (2) the jury was permitted to consider unconstitutional statutory aggravators. State court factual findings are presumptively correct and are therefore entitled to deference. When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney's performance was inadequate.
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034143p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Oyebanji challenges a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</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//sept98/95-4427.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. VEAL (9/4/1998, NO. 95-4427)<BR></A><BR>
Jr. as well as Ronald Sinclair and Thomas Trujillo were members of the Street Narcotics Unit (
</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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review the district court's denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence that the defendant filed before entering a conditional guilty plea under Fed. It was later discovered that the 911 call was placed by 12 year old Diane McKnight. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The girl was later identified as Diane McKnight. McKnight told the officer that her mother and her mother's boyfriend were inside the apartment fighting. After announcing that he was a police officer. Again announced that he was a police officer. The officer asked Bennett where the other person was. Bennett told him that no one else was upstairs. Her voice was shaky and she appeared upset. He was carrying a black school bag. Officer Azzarano handcuffed Myers' hands behind his back as he was lying face down on the floor and proceeded to pat him down. Myers responded that it was
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032787p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A74 902 513) Jan Knapik challenges the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that his conviction for attempted reckless endan germent is a crime invo lving m or a l tur pitude u n d er § 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
</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/10circuit/june97/96-6042.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. GREEN<BR></A><BR>
Vincent Berry and William Leroy Harding were jointly charged in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma with various criminal acts arising out of two robberies. All three were convicted on all counts wherein they were charged. All were sentenced to imprisonment. Green (No. 96 6042) and Berry (No. 96 6043) have appealed their respective convictions and sentences. Their separate appeals were companioned for purposes of briefing and oral argument. All three appeals were set for oral argument before this panel of the court. The panel has now determined that these three appeals should be consolidated for disposition in one opinion since they are interrelated and there is. Berry and Harding were charged with conspiring from December 23. Were charged with robbery by force. They were also charged with putting in jeopardy the life of Allison Ammer by the use of a firearm. Were charged with robbery by force. They were also charged with putting in jeopardy the lives of Paula Enix and Julie Cooper by the use of a firearm.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0CCA5DACDCE3DA688256C7E001749CD/$file/0155841.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CAMBRA ORDER The mandate is recalled and the opinion filed September 27. Is amended as follows: The last sentence of the opinion which reads: We thus remand this case to the District Court with instructions to issue the writ of habeas corpus. Unless California elects to retry Luna within 90 days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. is amended to read as follows: We thus remand this case to the District Court with instructions to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The mandate is to reissue forthwith. The District Court found that trial counsel's performance was deficient due to his failure to interview and subpoena two alibi witnesses and one exonerating witness. Concluded that his error was not prejudicial. Estaban Leal (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C6202277450F07A7882571800072E93A/$file/0550000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(Rios) was convicted by a jury of seven counts relating to a conspiracy with his father. Rios was convicted of (1) one count of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. The drug trafficking crime that Rios was convicted of furthering was the conspiracy crime. Rios contends that the evidence produced at trial was not sufficient to convict him of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under § 924(c)(1)(A). Sr. at the Burlington apartment on several occasions and testified that Rios was present on at least three of those occasions. The fact that Rios contested that charge is no longer a valid reason to deny the downward adjustment. We further note that Rios was sentenced before United States v. So the district court's reconsideration of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility will be in the context of the now advisory sentencing guidelines. Rios's residence is a three room suite containing a rear bedroom. Also in the front room was a dresser.
</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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032787p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A74 902 513) Jan Knapik challenges the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that his conviction for attempted reckless endan germent is a crime invo lving m or a l tur pitude u n d er § 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
</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/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-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316282.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in concluding that a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) is a crime of violence for the purpose of classifying Searcy as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.1 I. Searcy informed the detective that he was a member of a father daughter swap club. Searcy and the detective communicated next via telephone and Searcy reiterated that he was a member of a father daughter swap club and asked to set up a face toface meeting with the detective. Searcy said that he wanted to have sex with the detective's daughter and would arrange for the Searcy also raised the following issues on appeal: (1) his conduct as charged in the indictment did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). (3) his sentence is unconstitutional in light of Blakely v. We find these claims to be without merit and not warranting further discussion. 2 1 detective to have sex with his children. Searcy was then arrested. The court heard testimony that when Searcy was arrested the investigators found pictures on his computer.
</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/2004/04/03-1206.htm">03-1206 -- U.S. V. MUNGUIA-SANCHEZ -- 04/20/2004<BR></A><BR>
The district court erred in calculating his criminal history. <p> We are not persuaded by Mr. The girl informed the police that <p> she was engaged in a sexual relationship involving intercourse with the defendant. He told the police that she was his girlfriend and that he knew her age. He was twenty years old at the time. <p> Mr. He did move for a downward departure on the grounds that (1) his criminal history category of IV over represented the seriousness of his criminal record because much of his criminal history was based on driving offenses. (2) his unlawful reentry conviction was the product of duress because his family was in physical danger in his native El Salvador. <p> At sentencing. Our review is for plain error. <u>See</u> <u>United States v. (2) that is plain. If these three elements are satisfied. Which governs convictions for unlawful reentry and requires a sixteen level increase in the offense level
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7A1668422059025388256E0B005DFF6F/$file/0350056.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that the MVRA does not apply because his was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955331.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were charged by indictment in the U.S. Members of Emmanuel Umegbolu's Baltimore drug organization were refusing to pay him for heroin he had 2 supplied on a contingent basis. Cox and Umegbolu were forced to leave. Cox decided to have the guns to be used for the killings transported separately. Christian consented to a search of the bag he was carrying. Cover found the two pistols Christian was transporting. Christian was placed in Room 825 of the Days Inn in downtown Baltimore under DEA supervision. The room was wired with video and audio equipment. The two guns found in Christian's bag were rendered inoperable and also placed in the room. Who was supposed to point out Ankrah and Pluck. The five of them drove by Pluck's mother's house (Pluck was not there) and then drove by Ankrah's apartment (Ankrah was not there either). Faulkner were arrested as they attempted to leave the motel with Faulkner carrying the guns. Deair were later arrested at the Welcome Inn. Which sentence was merged and made to run consecutively with 210 months under Counts III.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F655F317568DF1088256C400083961C/$file/0155841.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court found that trial counsel's performance was deficient due to his failure to interview and subpoena two alibi witnesses and one exonerating witness. Concluded that his error was not prejudicial. Estaban Leal (
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052891p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to four months imprisonment. An immigration judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2224.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These three criminal appeals present the question whether previous Colorado misdemeanor convictions for third degree assault constitute crimes of violence under 2L1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines when the defendants were sentenced to less than one year imprisonment. The defendants claim that the crime of violence enhancement applies only to crimes of violence that are aggravated felonies. Claiming that his prior <hr> conviction was not a crime of violence and that his sentence violates the rule set forth in United States v. The government maintains that the sentences the defendants received for their prior assault convictions are irrelevant to determining whether their convictions constituted crimes of violence. Acknowledges that third degree assault is not always a crime of violence. Hernandez Garduno was convicted of third degree misdemeanor assault in violation of Colorado law. He was sentenced to 24 days' imprisonment and 12 months' unsupervised probation. Hernandez Garduno was arrested for illegally reentering the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The myriad provisions in the federal criminal code are justified. We are required in this case to determine whether Congress has authority under its power
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2293.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant was charged in an Information with illegally reentering the United States following deportation subsequent to being convicted of an aggravated felony. The agreement provided the Government could withdraw from the agreement if it later learned Defendant's previous conviction allowed for a sentencing enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines oflaw of the case. Defendant was subject to an enhancement. Notified the court that Defendant was subject to the enhancement. A sentence that fell between what Defendant would have received pursuant to the plea agreement and what he would have received without the agreement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and we affirm. After Defendant was arrested and charged with reentry of a deported alien previously convicted of an aggravated <hr> felony. His offense level was 12. Particularly important to our disposition of this case is paragraph 8(a) of the plea agreement which reads as follows: The Defendant and the United States agree pursuant to Fed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2184.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Appellant Jose Ruiz Rodriguez was charged with and pled guilty to unlawful reentry after deportation subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony. Was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment. That range was calculated in part by applying the Sentencing Guidelines' sixteen level enhancement for a defendant previously deported after a conviction for a felony that is a crime of violence. U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt. n.1(B)(iii).(2) The prior conviction at issue in this case is for (1) After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (2)
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/636625E1B807D1E488256F8E00034F2F/$file/0371392.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether
</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/sept98/95-4427.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. VEAL (9/4/1998, NO. 95-4427)<BR></A><BR>
Jr. as well as Ronald Sinclair and Thomas Trujillo were members of the Street Narcotics Unit (
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/013302P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Each appellant was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B.1. The district court's1 application of the career offender enhancement was predicated on at least one conviction for Three judges of the District of Minnesota imposed the sentences involved in these cases. We have consolidated these appeals because each raises the same issue: did amendment 568 (1997) to the Sentencing Guidelines reject our conclusion in Hascall and require the district court to examine the defendant's actual conduct that formed the evidentiary basis for his prior conviction for burglary of a commercial building in order to determine whether that burglary conviction constitutes a crime of violence under § 4B1.2? I. Daniel Blahowski was charged with both possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and distribution of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) following his arrest on March 26. Blahowski argued that although burglary of a commercial building is categorically treated as a crime of violence in this Circuit.
</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/06a0158n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the evidence the government presented was insufficient to support all three of his convictions. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury to support the convictions on Counts One and Three. We will affirm Lowe's convictions on those counts. We therefore will vacate Lowe's conviction on Count Two and remand the case to the district court. One of whom was about to enter it. Although he acknowledged that this particular business venture was not completely legitimate. Was so grateful for the item he purchased that he left the house to buy Lowe a beer. Lowe maintained that he did not have keys to the house and had never been to the house before. They decided to go into the house because the door was unlocked. The door was closed. No sex toys were found on the premises. Zooper testified that the door was open when the police arrived. Is for plain error. In reviewing for plain error we must determine whether (1) there was an error in the district court. (2) the error is plain. We must look at the instructions as a whole and we will not reverse unless the instructions are confusing.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTMzNDYtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3346-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 are not crimes of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Both were convicted of violating civil rights under color of law and conspiracy to do so in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 241. Acosta was primarily sentenced to fortyfive years and one day of imprisonment and Skinner was primarily sentenced to ninety three months' imprisonment. The majority of which are addressed in a companion summary order filed today. We write separately to reject the claim that §§ 242 and 241 are not crimes of violence for purposes of § 924(c). Along with several others were police officers assigned to the Buffalo Police Department's
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EACC38D4421CD6F7882571E100009E89/$file/0450431.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Washington contends that he is entitled to have his convictions reversed because: 1) the district court improperly admitted into evidence statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. 2) Washington was prejudiced when the judge admitted hearsay into evidence. 3) Washington was prejudiced as a result of prosecutorial misconduct when the Government. Claiming that Washington should have been sentenced to seven years because there was brandishing of a firearm in furtherance of the armed bank robbery. There also was testimony that one UNITED STATES v. When Taglioretti told Washington that there were several people cooperating. Washington responded by saying that he was willing to listen to the agents without an attorney present. He also gave conflicting testimony about whether he made any statements after he was advised of his Miranda rights. Washington testified that he could not clearly remember the interview because he was under the influence of alcohol and
</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/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3297_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We find that the district court erred when it imposed 2 Nos. 03 3297 & 03 3412 an enhancement for an offense involving fifty or more victims pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) because there is insufficient evidence in the record that Arnaout caused an actual loss to at least 50 people. We find that a defendant need not have been convicted of a federal crime of terrorism as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B) for the district court to consider whether to apply the terrorism sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. Arnaout was charged in an eight count Second Superseding Indictment. He was responsible for and directed BIF's operations in the United States. He solicited donations from the public by purporting that BIF and its related overseas offices were part of a charitable organization involved solely in humanitarian work for the benefit of civilian populations. Federal and state governments that a material portion of the donations received by BIF were being used to support soldiers overseas.
</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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/93-3372.html">UNITED STATES V. WACKER<BR></A><BR>
The modifications are as follows: 1. These defendants were charged only with firearm
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/985.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
11 a section mark is inserted before each section number of the U.S. Line 9 the word
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/033533P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are unaffected by Booker or by United States v. The district court1 concluded that Mohr was a career offender and sentenced him to 188 months imprisonment. Mohr went with him to Moen's motel room on December 11 where the sale was completed. They also executed a search warrant at Mohr's home where additional evidence was obtained. The two men were indicted on multiple charges. He was soon apprehended with assistance from a helicopter and infrared detection equipment. Mohr was sentenced on September 30. Concluded they were crimes of violence. He argues that burglary of a commercial building does not qualify unless the facts of the particular case were to show that the crime created a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. His burglary fit the category of crime of violence and that he was therefore a career offender. Characterizing Mohr as
</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/2001/07/00-5012.htm">00-5012 -- U.S. V. IILAND -- 07/03/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> Sidney Ronnell Iiland and sixteen others were named in a multicount indictment charging numerous offenses involving drug trafficking. Iiland was convicted after a jury trial of distributing various controlled substances. (3) he was prejudiced by going to trial with three other codefendants. (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court held defendants had failed to rebut the presumption that the wiretap orders were proper. Recordings of intercepted calls obtained through these wiretaps were played for the jury at trial. We disagree. <p> Electronic eavesdropping by law enforcement officials is governed by the federal wiretap statute. Under which the officer must establish and the court must find that
</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/D3DC0E87BDDA3BAB88256EB300548E33/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung. Another exceedingly peculiar and unique wound inflicted during this attack was a cut made by the attacker through which he then removed her sexual organs. For it was done in a manner that is difficult to accomplish. The evidence pointing to Leavitt was powerful. If circumstantial he was not caught redhanded. The victim's body was not found for several days which caused the destruction of some evidentiary markers. Who thought that Leavitt was the culprit. Another strange aspect of the case was that a person supposedly named Mike Jenkins also called the police a couple of times during that period and showed knowledge of details of the crime that only the killer himself would know. Mike Jenkins was not known in Blackfoot and was not heard of thereafter. Is 7780 LEAVITT v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/42A4FA155023ED0D882572F7007974C8/$file/0630451.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that his prior state conviction for escape was not a crime of violence warranting a sentence enhancement under the Guidelines. We affirm the enhancement and hold that where the appropriate documents reveal that a defendant was previously convicted of escaping from a jail or prison. I. Background Savage pled guilty to and was sentenced for possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of a firearm not identified by a serial number in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841. Savage conceded that felony assault with a weapon is a crime of violence. The district court ruled that the felony escape was categorically a crime of violence. Noting that (at that time) the issue was an open question in our circuit but that
</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/FC77938EB03987F2882570AD0051A716/$file/0372116.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. GONZALES 15025 BACKGROUND Notash was admitted to the United States in October 1997. His sole contention is that the conviction was not for a crime involving moral turpitude. He had left a line relating to foreign goods blank because he was not sure how to declare the items. Customs officials thought that he was attempting to avoid payment of duty on the goods and charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 542. Notash thus argued that his conviction was not for a crime involving moral turpitude. Although crimes involving fraud generally are considered to involve moral turpitude. Crimes involving false statements are not categorically considered to involve moral turpitude. His offense did not involve
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313992.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: It is a federal crime to use the internet to knowingly attempt to persuade. It is also a crime to aid or abet another in committing a federal crime. James Hornaday was charged by superseding indictment with violating both § 2422(b) and § 2. The case was tried to a jury. In his appeal Hornaday contends that his actions are not prohibited by § 2422(b) because he never used the internet to communicate directly with a minor. He also contends that he is entitled to a new trial because. It was improper for the court to instruct the jury that he could be convicted pursuant to § 2. The jury's general verdict may have been based on that improper legal theory. He is wrong about the first point. There was error but it was harmless. I.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510285.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this appeal we are asked to decide whether an Alabama felony DUI conviction in violation of Ala. McGill was arrested at his home under suspicion of possession of a controlled substance. McGill was subsequently charged with one count of being a 2 felon in possession of a firearm. After the base offense level was appropriately increased and reduced. 3 McGill's total offense level was 23. McGill was also charged with and convicted of possession of a controlled substance in the Circuit Court of Coffee County. In relevant part: (a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while: (1) There is 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his or her blood. If McGill's DUI convictions did not constitute
</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/4F11B9AB189F1321882572F700791863/$file/0555665.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that there was no constitutional violation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. CASTRO 7137 bystander was shot and killed. Another was stabbed and severely wounded. Both Dinardo and Murdoch were charged with murder accompanied by special circumstances. Dinardo was tried first. Dinardo was convicted and was sentenced to 25 years' to life imprisonment. The judge suggested to Dinardo that his sentence could be reduced were he to testify against Murdoch. Dinardo was a key witness at Murdoch's trial. This is a stick up.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/031547p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jermane Bonner fled from police after the car in which he was a passenger was stopped for a routine traffic violation. Discovered that he was carrying crack cocaine. Articulable suspicion that Bonner was involved in criminal activity. The District Court reasoned that the sole basis for the stop was Bonner's flight from police. Mere flight when police appear on the scene is not sufficient to estab lish reasonable suspicion. PA 15219 Counsel for Appellant We will reverse. Although flight alone is not enough to justify a police stop. This is not a case of flight upon noticing police. The officers in this case were effectuating a legitimate traffic stop. Sweeney were in uniform and on duty at the police security booth at the entrance to the Ohioview Acres housing project in Stowe T o w nship . There were two passengers: the driver's brother. Driving in the direction Bonner was running. Which were later tested and found to be crack cocaine. The driver and other passenger were told to put the vehicle in park.
</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/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/1e25f99e6eef093788256aa2000229fb/$FILE/0010013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether Trinidad Aquino should have received a sixteen level increase in base offense level under Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because he was previously deported after conviction for an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-5014.htm">01-5014 -- HAIN V. GIBSON -- 02/20/2002<BR></A><BR>
1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The following is a summary of the facts as set forth by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) in disposing of Hain's initial direct appeal: <p> During the early morning hours of October 6. Laura Lee Sanders and Michael Houghton were seated in Sanders' car outside a Tulsa bar when they were approached by two men. Hain and Lambert were in the parking lot. Houghton and Sanders were banging on the trunk and yelling. Returned a short time later to see if the fire was burning well. <p> The two men stopped at a friend's house in Jennings and left a bag of things belonging to the victims in the garage. Where they were apprehended on the evening of October 9. Hain was charged by complaint and information in the District Court of Creek County. (2) that the murders were especially heinous. That the murders were especially heinous. All of whom opined that Hain was not prone to violence. (4) the fact that he was dominated by Lambert. The existence of all three aggravating factors alleged by the prosecution and Hain was sentenced to death on both counts. <p> Following his resentencing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1EE25975DFAF49388256E5A00707C38/$file/0010013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether Trinidad Aquino should have received a sixteen level increase in base offense level under Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because he was previously deported after conviction for an
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5035.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Jason P. The claim at issue in this case was brought under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act (
</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/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/f1ee25975dfaf49388256e5a00707c38/$FILE/0010013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether Trinidad Aquino should have received a sixteen level increase in base offense level under Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because he was previously deported after conviction for an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/001622.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are faced with an issue of first impression for this court. Whether the target of a grand jury investigation whose attorney has been subpoenaed to give testimony and provide documents to the grand jury that would ordinarily be protected by attorney client privilege is entitled to review the government's ex parte affidavit upon which the District Court relied in deciding that the crime fraud exception was applicable. We will refer to the dramatis personae as the client or the target (the target of the investigation) and the attorney (who is the witness under subpoena). We will also not identify the documents that were subpoenaed. As the legal issue before us is not dependent on the particular documents. We will assume arguendo that those documents ordinarily would be privileged. I. There is an ongoing extensive federal grand jury investigation into the client's activities in connection with potential violations of the Internal Revenue Code and 18 U.S.C. We were advised at the oral 2 argument that the grand jury investigation has been underway for two years and that numerous witnesses have testified and numerous documents have been produced.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5608E2003A20E6F0882570FA007D27BF/$file/0530066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: There are two questions before us on this appeal. Is a guilty plea an admission of the facts charged in the indictment? Is an Alford plea. The first of these questions is well established in our decisions. The second is not. I. BACKGROUND Guerrero Velasquez was charged with being an alien in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The report should have imposed
</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/3180B7508C9A29FF8825710D0081BEA5/$file/0530066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. A sentence suggested by the guidelines is presumptively reasonable.
</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/02opinions/02-3329.html">JAMES A. WHITE, JR., V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David M. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because we conclude that White must be deemed to have been convicted of ". Therefore correctly concluded th
</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=06-1161.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <hr> Mark Jordan was convicted of stabbing to death a fellow inmate in broad daylight at the recreation yard of the federal penitentiary in Florence. He claims the district court erred in refusing to admit evidence tending to show the stabbing was committed by another inmate. Jordan also argues the court erred in concluding that multiple armed robberies committed during a 1994 crime spree were unrelated crimes. Facts Mark Jordan was accused of murdering a fellow prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Florence. Numerous other prisoners were exercising. Near Stone were three other inmates. Both Jordan and Riker were observed walking away from the table. Two of the wounds were superficial. While the third was fatal. Stone was able to run across the yard before collapsing. Gary Collins was in the recreational yard at the time of the stabbing. Stone was far ahead. Was also in the yard and observed the stabbing. Overlooking the recreational yard is the lieutenant's patio. An assistant warden at the prison was taking a cigarette break.
</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/870530A1FDABD79688256EE800580191/$file/0315698.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When those johns are arrested. We hope that the only visit people make to our jail is a virtual visit.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1534.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Winn was deemed a career offender under § 4B1.1. In which it was charged that Winn did
</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/61D3BC14CD56B4E5882570D5004D9806/$file/0372028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. GONZALES ORDER The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED as moot. Is hereby withdrawn. Further petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc will be accepted. Valencia was convicted of felony1 unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under eighteen. Who was more than three years younger than he. Our jurisdiction is controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and hold that California Penal Code section 261.5(c) is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16. He was senA violation of section 261.5(c) can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. It was charged as a felony. 1 VALENCIA v. The imposition of his sentence was suspended. He was placed on five years probation. Valencia was charged in the notice to appear with being removable as an aggravated felon for committing sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Our cases deciding whether a violation of California Penal Code section 261.5(c) is an aggravated felony usually decide the case by evaluating whether it constitutes sexual abuse of a minor in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A).2 But here.
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022329.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is one of the dealers that received this demand letter. Bob's Gun Shop also asserted that the criteria used by the Bureau to target the selected dealers were arbitrary and capricious. 2274 (2002). 2 Bob's Gun Shop suggests this case is moot because the Bureau changed some of the selection criteria for its new demand letter issued in 2002. The change in criteria does not affect the issue in this case whether the criteria used to select Bob's Gun Shop to receive the 2000 demand letter were arbitrary and capricious. 1 BLAUSTEIN & REICH v. See 18 U.S.C. § 923(a).3 The Bureau is required to issue a license to any applicant that meets all the statutory qualifications and agrees to abide by the applicable laws. Or dealer that holds such a license is commonly referred to as a federal firearms licensee (an FFL). Bob's Gun Shop is an FFL dealer. The licensing authority was transferred to the Department of Justice. § 178 was recently redesignated as § 478. The FFL in the chain of distribution must report all or any portion of the information it is statutorily required to maintain for each firearm.
</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/AA3339ECCB67DE4A88256E5A00707B74/$file/9771373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended. The Clerk is ordered to file the attached amended opinion. Circuit Judge: This appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</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/1C84F396001F211588256F080056BF3B/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is reported as Leavitt v. We will put page references to the published opinion in parenthesis. 1 LEAVITT v. As is well known by now. The Supreme Court determined that a capital sentencing scheme wherein the judge decides aggravating facts without a jury is unconstitutional. Leavitt asserts that Ring is retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review. Substitute the following in its place: CONCLUSION Leavitt is not entitled to habeas corpus relief as far as his conviction and the sentencing issues disposed of in this opinion are concerned. He is entitled to have the district court consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his second sentencing hearing. Arave's petition for rehearing is DENIED. Leavitt's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is also DENIED. Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D3601FEB3AE9C4788256A610081B90A/$file/9771373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended. The Clerk is ordered to file the attached amended opinion. Circuit Judge: This appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</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/1E25F99E6EEF093788256AA2000229FB/$file/0010013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether Trinidad Aquino should have received a sixteen level increase in base offense level under Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because he was previously deported after conviction for an
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/033533P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court1 concluded that Mohr was a career offender and sentenced him to 188 months imprisonment. Mohr went with him to Moen's motel room on December 11 where the sale was completed. They also executed a search warrant at Mohr's home where additional evidence was obtained. The two men were indicted on multiple charges. He was soon apprehended with assistance from a helicopter and infrared detection equipment. Mohr was sentenced on September 30. Concluded they were crimes of violence. He argues that burglary of a commercial building does not qualify unless the facts of the particular case were to show that the crime created a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. His burglary fit the category of crime of violence and that he was therefore a career offender. Characterizing Mohr as
</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/common/opinions/199805/96-7239a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Le vine were on the briefs. Spitzer were on the brief. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief for the United States of America as amicus curiae. Ordinance that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had held was constitutional. Act bars unmarried and unemanci pated persons 1 under seventeen years old from being in 1 Although the curfew law is entitled 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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/041839P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Johnson contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that he possessed the firearms or methamphetamine. Johnson told Prine that the other firearm was taken by Bo Turley. Was surreptitiously returned to the Prine residence prior to Johnson's arrest. Missouri Sheriff's Department that Johnson was in possession of stolen firearms. A search warrant was obtained and executed at the Johnson trailer. Although the deputies were unable to locate the remaining stolen firearms. Johnson was charged in state court with two counts of unlawful use of a weapon arising out of the shootings. The state charges were ultimately dismissed after Johnson was charged by federal authorities in the instant matter. Johnson was charged with being a felon in possession of the .22 magnum caliber rifle. Because the district court found that Johnson's conviction for illegally possessing the .30 06 deer rifle occurred in connection with a crime of violencethe shootings at the Harris residencethe district court applied § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) and found that Johnson's total offense level was 34.
</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/Oct1996/96a1434p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. The district court determined that McQuilkin was a
</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/Mar2000/981636.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before this court on an appeal from an order denying defendant ARCO Chemical Company's (
</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/EBB5435A58B0AFED882570A400546E56/$file/0199018o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The request for rehearing en banc is denied. *John Stokes is substituted for his predecessor. My dissent is not based on my adherence to the reasons set forth in my dissent from our decision last year not to take this case en banc. The majority holds that Payton
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1769.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. With whom MaryEllen Kelleher was on brief. It is common wisdom that the SELYA. Circuit Judge. past is prologue. All past crimes are not regarded as equal. The guideline is fueled only by previous felony convictions for crimes of violence and controlled substance offenses. It is undisputed that. All references herein are to that edition. 2 employed the career offender guideline. A significantly greater sentence would have been mandated. (2) that offense is a felony which can itself be characterized as either a crime of violence or controlled substance offense. That offense is a controlled substance offense. He labors under the burden of a prior conviction for extortion a crime that is considered a crime of violence. The nub of the case is the defendant's insistence that his prior criminal history does not include a second predicate 3 offense. Notwithstanding the government's claim that strong arm tactics were standard fare in the racketeering and racketeering related activities over which Winter presided.
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042048p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) and therefore renders him removable. We have recently held that crimes with a mens rea of recklessness do not constitute crimes of violence. As Popal's crime was a recklessness offense. He is not removable as an aggravated felon. We will therefore grant the petition for review. I. Popal was born in Afghanistan in June 1981. He was convicted of simple assault. He was sentenced to four to twenty three months' imprisonment. Alleging that he was removable as an aggravated felon because his assault was a crime of violence. Finding that Pennsylvania simple assault is not a crime of violence. That Popal is therefore removable. Beyond pressing the argument that his crime was not an aggravated felony. The IJ was thus understandably puzzled by the BIA's order of remand. Entering an opinion entitled
</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/1998/01/96-4108.htm">96-4108 -- U.S. V. DURAN -- 01/09/1998<BR></A><BR>
The defendant relied on the affirmative defense that he was entrapped by the undercover government agents and government informant who negotiated a series of cocaine deals with him. It became clear that the jury was confused about the legal contours of the entrapment defense. The government concedes that the court's jury instructions on entrapment were plainly erroneous. It was plain error for the district court to respond to the jury's requests for clarification by simply referring the jury back to the initial defective jury charge. Which in fact was the source of the jury's confusion. The defendant's additional contention that he was entitled to an acquittal as a matter of law. We remand this case for a new trial. <p align=
</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/45CBB0A40AD55D7E88256C98007A3497/$file/0155290.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the California appellate court's denial of his claim was contrary to and involved an objectively unreasonable application of controlling federal law. Defendant/Appellee Gary Bradley (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/93-5123.op2.html">CRAIG V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Craig v. The panel issued another opinion which did not supersede but instead was designed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031532p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitions for review of a final order of removal grounded upon the determination that he is an aggravated felon on account of his conviction for touching the breast of his cousin. Who was under sixteen years of age. The offense of conviction was 11 Del.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8647EB6B8F9A37C882572FF00819DA7/$file/0630200.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: Gregory Anthony Rendon Duarte (Rendon Duarte) was sentenced to 70 months' imprisonment and 36 months' supervised release after a jury convicted him of one count of being a felon in possession of two firearms. Anchorage police officers observed Rendon Duarte purchase what they thought was a handgun from Dwayne Dollison. Which was being driven by Jonel Fergerson. The vehicle was registered to Rendon Duarte's father. RENDON DUARTE which weapons were found within vehicles driven or occupied by Rendon Duarte. Taking into account that the offense was committed subsequent to sustaining a felony conviction of a
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1655.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee. He says the district court's contrary finding was legally incorrect for at least two reasons: (1) the district judge erred when he concluded that the Massachusetts crime of assault and battery on a police officer (one of Fernandez' predicate offenses) is. (2) the district judge's alternate finding (that the facts underlying Fernandez' offense establish it as a crime of violence) was based on an impermissible judicial inquiry into the discrete circumstances of his offense conduct. Because we conclude that the Massachusetts crime of assault and battery on a police officer is. We need not address Fernandez' contention that the trial judge's factual inquiry was inconsistent with the mandate of Taylor v. Determined that he was indeed a career offender. Fernandez' guideline sentencing range would have been more favorable to him if the offense had not been so classified. Discussion Whether Fernandez' prior conviction for assaulting a police officer is properly deemed a predicate
</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/3E8AF19EE03CD89288256F00005891D1/$file/0274460.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Luis Toro Romero appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFC9C29C5320BE7B88256DBA00776FD7/$file/0270317.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Petitioner was admitted to the United States in 1970 as an immigrant. He was convicted. Was sentenced to three and one half years' imprisonment. § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii).1 1 This section provides: Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(iii). 15018 LARA CHACON v. Which is defined as an aggravated felony in INA § 101(a)(43)(D).2 In two subsequent amendments to the charging document. Petitioner admitted that he was a citizen of Mexico. Is deportable. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). 2 LARA CHACON v. He concluded that Petitioner's money laundering convictions were predicated upon trafficking in marijuana. The IJ cited the PSR as follows: [T]he Presentence Report states that the respondent was identified as a
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/93-5123.op2.html">CRAIG V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Craig v. The panel issued another opinion which did not supersede but instead was designed 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://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1427.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Paxton's prior Colorado third degree assault conviction was a crime of violence and recommended a base offense level of 20. The district court ruled that the Colorado third degree assault conviction was a crime of violence. He argues that third degree assault under Colorado law is not a crime of violence as defined by USSG 4B1.2(a). That he is entitled to resentencing under United States v. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. <hr> I. Crime of Violence
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2030.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for the United States. Laurier Doyon was tried by a jury of attempting to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced as a career offender to 262 months in prison and now appeals. One of his claims is that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The drug was
</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/September2004/031532p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitions for review of a final order of removal grounded upon the determination that he is an aggravated felon on account of his conviction for touching the breast of his cousin. Who was under sixteen years of age. The offense of conviction was 11 Del.
</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/Sept2002/009004.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the District Court's orders as to all claims regarding the guilt phase of Marshall's trial. We will remand for further evidentiary development as to his claim that his attorney was ineffective in the penalty phase. Was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for having hired someone to murder his wife. Maria and her husband both were examined by a physician to qualify for an additional insurance policy. Marshall was hit on the head and Maria was fatally shot. We will reprise the facts at some length as they provide a necessary background for understanding much of our analysis. Marshall mentioned that he was seeking an out of town investigator to track missing casino winnings that he had given to his wife. Since Toms River was a small community where news traveled quickly. Marshall's only contact with McKinnon was through telephoning Cumber both at home and at the hardware store. McKinnon had a person whose name really was Jimmy Davis sign for the money each time. The numerous telephone conversations were.
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044092p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is not a prerequisite to conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (actual or attempted persuasion of a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity) or 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (traveling for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity). 2 We also reject the myriad other attacks Defendant Todd Tykarsky makes on his conviction. Fifth and Eighth Amendment challenges to the statutes under which he was convicted. We will affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing. Tykarsky is a resident of Trenton. In the same chat room was Special Agent Nester. Special Agent Nester sent him a photograph of herself that was taken when she was approximately 14 or 15 years old. Tykarsky wrote that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0345p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lloyd was sentenced to consecutive terms of fortysix and eighty four months. Lloyd filed a timely appeal arguing that the second count of the indictment was insufficient or duplicitous. Certain evidentiary rulings made during his trial were an abuse of discretion. This decision was originally issued as 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://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A73E4CF58BE10F108825707400578E5C/$file/0430074.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government contends that the district court erred in finding that Kelly's 1998 Washington state conviction for attempting to elude a police vehicle was not a
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310725.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants herein proceeded to trial and were found guilty. I. This trial clearly demonstrates the inherent danger in a multi defendant conspiracy prosecution that individuals who are not actually members of the group will be swept into the conspiratorial net. Because the government is permitted broad prosecutorial discretion to prove the conspiracy. The likelihood exists that those who associate with conspirators will be found guilty of a crime that they have not intended to commit. This danger is compounded when the grand jury indicts on one theory of the illegal conduct. We have seen such conspiracy prosecutions before. The district court was persuaded to permit the government to proceed upon the assumption that the controlling law of mail fraud would change prior to the end of trial. Was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial. We held that fundamental due process was denied the defendants and vacated their convictions. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.1 The defendants were alleged to have used the United States mails in furtherance of a scheme and artifice to defraud McDonald's Corporation (McDonald's).
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2259.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. (2) motions for severance should have been granted. (3) a motion to suppress pretrial photospread identifications should have been granted. (5) the evidence was insufficient to convict. (7) the court should have instructed the jury on the defenses of entrapment and duress. During which a narcotics smuggling venture with Cabeza and his suppliers in Colombia was hatched. The evidence contains numerous photographs and over one hundred recordings of their discussions up until the moment it finally unravelled and several of the players were arrested. A shipment of up to 300 kilograms of cocaine was discussed as well. 1992 Gordo was scheduled to pick up 10. Was eventually forced to jettison its 4 load and return to Colombia. The conspirators were monitored as they continued to arrange for a successful importation throughout the month of April. Velazquez was arrested by local authorities on drug related charges. Apparently because he thought the deal was dead. Communicated to Pe a that the deal was still on and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2002/012774.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court's denial of habeas relief will be affirmed. I. De Leon is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. Has a spouse and child who are United 2 States citizens. De Leon was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas. The judge also found him ineligible for adjustment of his status because he was unable to qualify for a waiver under INA S 212(h). Because he had not been a legal immigrant in the United States for seven years preceding the date the removal proceedings were initiated. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. Crime of Moral Turpitude De Leon was convicted of receiving stolen property less than a week under five years from the date he was admitted to the United States. The Pennsylvania statute provides that a person is guilty of theft if the person
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002375.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide if a state misdemeanor conviction for vehicular homicide is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1447p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that Taylor was a career offender pursuant to USSG § 4B1.1. Taylor was sentenced to a term of 20 years imprisonment. Taylor appealed and his sentence was affirmed by an order dated March 8. (App. 311) Taylor does not challenge the determination that his 1984 conviction for aggravated assault is a
</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/D6C8567CB1C2222088256F86006F29C8/$file/0371578.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was admitted to the United States on June 12. Was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for each charge. The INS alleged that Penuliar was removable for being convicted 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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034066p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 1 This case previously reached our court after Johnson's conviction at his first trial in January 2001. The district court granted Johnson a new trial because the government had not The background of the case is as follows. Ingram and Milton approached Donald Foster and Sonia Smith Burgest as they exited Smith Burgest's 1995 Chevy Blazer and that the three co conspirators forced Smith Burgest to remove her jewelry and then stole the vehicle.2 The indictment alleges that all three men were armed and that Johnson acted as a lookout. It maintained that the evidence was admissible pursuant to Rule 609(a)(1) as a crime punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year and whose probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect on Johnson. The government asserted that the evidence of the prior conviction was admissible as a crime involving dishonesty or false statement pursuant to Rule 609(a)(2). The district court found that the evidence was 2 provided his attorney with notice that one of the victims in the carjacking would identify Johnson as one of the perpetrators.
</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/45939E41FBB3907E882570FF0050B872/$file/0371578.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended as follows: 1. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. The government argues that aiding and abetting liability is included in the generic definition of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/976156.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or whose sentence was enhanced for. Possession of a firearm during the commis2 sion of a drug offense is convicted of a
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTQxOTlfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-4199_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner appeals from an order of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's determination that because petitioner was convicted under Connecticut General Statute. Was therefore guilty of an
</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/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1922_047.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Matthew Hale was convicted after a jury trial on two counts of obstructing justice. We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. OEOE 2 No. 05 1922 entered against his white supremacist organization by United States District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow and his involvement in a plot to have the judge murdered. Hale was sentenced to a total of 480 months' imprisonment. I. Hale was the
</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/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2793_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because this prior bad act evidence is neither admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) nor intricately related to the charged crime. Princeten Davis was apprehended by police while fleeing the scene of a bank robbery. That this earlier robbery was the idea of his cousin defendant Antonio Owens and that Owens made him do it. Owens was arrested on September 4. Owens woke Davis up and asked him if he was ready to rob a bank.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1668.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004154.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
History of § 924(c)(1)(A) leads us to conclude 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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-15150.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ROGERS (9/29/2000, NO. 99-15150)<BR></A><BR>
We vacate Rogers's sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Aaron Lamar Rogers was arrested on June 11. In the van Rogers had been driving.</P> <P> Rogers was indicted by a Southern District of Florida grand jury for possession of cocaine base (crack cocaine) with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).<A HREF=
</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/03/03-3909.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jonathan Bradley was indicted for one count of possession of over five grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The car was playing loud music. Bradley was given a citation for violation of the city's noise ordinance. Was arrested and was taken to the police station. I . . . was driving a motor vehicle and possessed a quantity of narcotics (marijuana) as well as a firearm. That firearm was a Springfield Armory Model 1911 A1. The government would have to prove two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First. On the same day he was stopped while driving a motor vehicle. The firearm is described in the indictment. A factual basis for the § 841(a)(1) offense was also established and admitted. An argument that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because of misrepresentation or mistake as to criminal culpability on the § 924(c) offense and the void or voidable nature of the plea agreement based on this misrepresentation or mistake. After a guilty plea is accepted.
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044405p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether the 55 year consecutive mandatory minimum portion of his sentence on the firearms charges violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Walker was charged with 2 two counts in connection with the Mr. Z's who were on their way to make a night deposit at a bank in the same strip mall. The drug trafficking charges (Counts VI IX) were severed from the armed robbery and armed bank robbery charges (Counts I V) for trial. Walker was convicted by a jury of Counts VI IX. Walker was convicted by a jury of Counts I V. Walker was sentenced on June 16. Were unconstitutional.1 The District Court overruled his objections and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 65 years. Section 924(c) provides that the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense is five years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). If the firearm is a short barreled shotgun.
</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/0B2E526E11618CBA88257210007B1F4A/$file/0435253.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case presents the question whether a state prisoner who contends that he is actually innocent. Whose principal witness is coerced by the state into not testifying on his behalf. Roger Smith is currently serving a life sentence with a 30 year minimum term. The claims were procedurally defaulted. All we decide is that. Both the facts and the law are complex. The exception on which he relies is known as the Schlup
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1773.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. This is another in the long line SELYA. If specified offenses are committed by a person with a prior criminal record that includes at least one
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-6147.htm">99-6147 -- VALDEZ V. WARD -- 07/27/2000<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge. <p> Petitioner Geraldo Valdez was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Valdez is a Mexican immigrant who has lived in Oklahoma for some time. Barron was a homosexual who apparently showed a sexual interest in Mr. Telling him he was going to kill him and that according to the Bible homosexuals do not deserve to live. Which was written in English. This confession was taped and played for the jury. <p> Mr. Valdez was arraigned the morning of July 26 and counsel was appointed for him. Valdez was still in custody. Valdez who was present at the bar on the evening of the murder. Valdez was conducted entirely in Spanish. Agent Irwin identified himself and emphasized he was only there to establish Mr. Valdez stated
</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/FAE4FA67AEAA4EDF88256EEB005716EE/$file/0310103.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Maitreya Badami was also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellee and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for amicus curiae Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of California and was on the briefs. Was also on the briefs. This is my punishment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFADD80DBE116D1088256F390079EA61/$file/0230429.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have been amended. Judges Gould and Tallman have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. No further petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc will be entertained. Contending that this prior conviction should have been excluded under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). That he was found thereafter in the United States without permission on June 30. His conviction for threats to do harm did not warrant a criminal history point because it should have been excluded under U.S.S.G. The stipulated 995 Motion further provided the following facts:
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-3130a.html">USA V. MCKIE BRYAN<BR></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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-6073.wpd.html">HALE V. UNITED STATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR>
The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. The district court's order was a final order which disposed of all claims with respect to all parties. Hale was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the Hobbs Act. Hale was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. Hale was convicted and sentenced to death by the State of Oklahoma for his role in the same crime. Claiming that the information was exempt from mandatory disclosure under several FOIA exemptions.
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032071p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ZAUZMER Assistant United States Attorney Senior Appellate Counsel This case was submitted to the panel of Judges Nygaard. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 * PAUL G. Was convicted by a jury of knowingly preventing and hampering his deportation under a final order of removal. He was sentenced to sixty four months imprisonment and two years of supervised release. (2) that Remoi's previous conviction for criminal sexual contact with a helpless victim was incorrectly treated as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5068.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The database is used for law enforcement identification purposes. If personally identifiable information is removed. In the absence of individualized suspicion that they have committed additional crimes. (1) DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. We hold that the Act is constitutional because the Government's interest in extracting DNA from the Plaintiffs outweighs their interests in avoiding the intrusions upon their privacy. The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act DNA is a double helix shaped nucleic acid held together by hydrogen bonds and composed of base pairings of Adenine and Thymine and Cytosine and Guanine. DNA is extracted from a cell. The short tandem repeats are copied millions of times. Since there is only an infinitesimal chance that two people's DNA will be identical in these variable regions. The Bureau of Prisons collects the DNA samples from qualified offenders who are in custody. The federal probation office collects the DNA samples from qualified offenders who are on release.
</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/199915150.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Aaron Lamar Rogers was arrested on June 11. Rogers was indicted by a Southern District of Florida grand jury for possession of cocaine base (crack cocaine) with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).1 He was tried before a jury on August 26. Was found guilty. A Pre Sentence Investigation Report (
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTQxOTlfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-4199_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner appeals from an order of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's determination that because petitioner was convicted under Connecticut General Statute. Was therefore guilty of an
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-1352.htm">03-1352 -- U.S. V. MILLER -- 05/25/2004<BR></A><BR>
Miller was charged with third degree assault in Colorado courts under Colo.
</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/199915150.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Aaron Lamar Rogers was arrested on June 11. Rogers was indicted by a Southern District of Florida grand jury for possession of cocaine base (crack cocaine) with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).1 He was tried before a jury on August 26. Was found guilty. A Pre Sentence Investigation Report (
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1024.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rios Rosario</U> were on brief for appellant Lorenzo Pé. Castillo</U> were on brief for appellant Peñ. Os Rosario</U> were on brief for appellant Peñ. Were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</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/F4C515E7BD615192882572F0007F6DB0/$file/0530585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We held that seconddegree burglary under Oregon law is a categorical burglary offense under the analysis required by Taylor v. We now hold that Cunningham was wrongly decided and expressly overrule it. We review de novo whether a prior conviction is a predicate felony under the ACCA. His argument is twofold. Because recent Supreme Court cases have called into question its validity. We are not persuaded by either part of his challenge. [1] Under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. So as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional. When the Court has decided expressly that a practice is constitutional. There are no
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-15150.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ROGERS (9/29/2000, NO. 99-15150)<BR></A><BR>
We vacate Rogers's sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Aaron Lamar Rogers was arrested on June 11. In the van Rogers had been driving.</P> <P> Rogers was indicted by a Southern District of Florida grand jury for possession of cocaine base (crack cocaine) with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/993845.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Supreme Court held in Apprendi that a criminal defendant's constitutional rights are violated when his prescribed statutory maximum penalties are increased by any fact. Our review is for plain error. Was erroneous. Because we remain confident that a rational jury would have found. We conclude that Vazquez is not entitled to plain error relief and we will therefore affirm his sentence.1 I. The relevant facts are largely undisputed. Vazquez's fingerprint was on one of the bags in which the cocaine had been stored. Algarin was identified as a
</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.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-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945244.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Deryck Ramsey was ordered deported from the United States under sections 241(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Also because one of those crimes was an aggravated felony. Contending that the BIA erred in determining his conviction for attempted lewd assault under Florida Statutes § 800.04(1) was an aggravated felony. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Deryck Ramsey is a native and citizen of Jamaica who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in October 1976. Sister live in the they are all United States citizens. All of whom live in the United States and are United States citizens. Ramsey was convicted of lewd assault in violation of Florida Statutes § 800.04(2) for having committed a sexual battery
</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/2003/11/03-2075.htm">03-2075 -- U.S. V. VENEGAS-ORNELAS -- 11/14/2003<BR></A><BR>
Adalberto Venegas Ornelas (
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051974np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming his conviction was based on insufficient evidence and the jury instructions given at his trial were incorrect. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. Which object the officer believed was a gun. After Lloyd was handcuffed. Lloyd did not have a permit to carry this gun. Lloyd was then indicted for distributing less than five grams of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) (Count One) and for carrying a firearm during and in relation to his drug trafficking crime and possessing the firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime. A jury found Lloyd guilty on both counts of the indictment and he was sentenced to 84 months' incarceration. Lloyd argues the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the conclusion that he used or carried a firearm during and in relation to a drug crime or possessed a firearm in furtherance of the crime because the gun's presence was never revealed to the CI during the drug transaction. This is a
</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//feb2002/00-15795.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TIMMONS (2/26/2002, NO. 00-15795)<BR></A><BR>
We also vacate the sentence for the underlying drug offenses because it included a weapon enhancement for the possession of the weapons that were part of the same course of conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.</SPAN></P> <P 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://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1641p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Roussos is a federal prison inmate serving a term for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. (2) whether the Program Statement is therefore inconsistent with the congressional statute authorizing early release and with the BOP regulations interpreting the statute. Was convicted following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Roussos was arrested at his place of employment by the FBI after an anti drug task force zeroed in on a New York City area drug trafficking network in which Roussos had participated. There is no dispute that guns were not a factor in his arrest and conviction. Roussos was sentenced on December 16. The relevant BOP regulations define its meaning by referencing the term
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTE1MTItY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-1512-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Frampton and Latique Johnson were indicted on several counts stemming from their involvement in the attempted murder of Michael Johnson (a.k.a. Frampton and Johnson were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Frederick J. Seeking an acquittal on the basis that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain their convictions. The Government agreed to severance of that charge in contemplation of dismissal in the event that Frampton was convicted on the remaining counts. 3 1 The Government appeals the former portion of the district court's order. Was on the run from local police and was looking to lay low for some time while making his trade elsewhere. Who was himself a crack cocaine dealer. Had fallen on hard times and was in need of additional money. The three reached an agreement whereby Frampton and Cooley were permitted to sell crack cocaine out of 41 Ingalls. The problems facing Frampton and Cooley were only temporary in nature. Thus dictated only a temporary arrangement: Frampton and Cooley were permitted to sell crack cocaine out of 41 Ingalls only until they got back on their By letter submitted to the Court on July 22.
</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/oct2001/99-4094.op2.html">UNITED STATES V. FULFORD (10/2/2001, NO. 99-4094)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212924.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As that phrase is used in § 1958(a). Valoze's cellular phone number was registered in a South Georgia area code. This telephone call was recorded. Both men were physically located in Georgia. The money would only be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1727.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This decision was originally issued as an unpublished order. We now issue the decision as a published opinion. 2 No. 02 1727 his prior conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a minor was not a
</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/feb2002/00-15795.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TIMMONS (2/26/2002, NO. 00-15795)<BR></A><BR>
We also vacate the sentence for the underlying drug offenses because it included a weapon enhancement for the possession of the weapons that were part of the same course of conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.</SPAN></P> <P 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/0EA7056B5076FC3A88256ED800825509/$file/0330383.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Granbois was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 2241(c). The district court determined that Granbois was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Although Granbois conceded that his 1998 conviction was a
</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/52F840BF69A5E89F88257077004FB57F/$file/0410090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression UNITED STATES v. It is squarely presented.2 Facts Scott was arrested for drug possession crimes under state law and released on his own recognizance. Among the conditions of his release was consent to
</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//dec94/93-6955.html">UNITED STATES V. MOORE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court found that the essential elements of the crime under section 924(c)(1) are identical to those in section 2119. Therefore held that cumulatively punishing Moore and Hewlett under the two statutes was a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause.<p> <b>ISSUE</b><p> <p> The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether charging a defendant for the same acts or occurrences under both 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/aug1999/971042.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether Marlon Garth is procedurally barred from collaterally challenging his guilty plea to the charge of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/005186.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue on appeal is whether. These records should include but are not limited to: All business checks. We will refer to the dramatis personae as the target (the target of the investigation) and the attorney (the target's attor ney who is the witness under subpoena). 2 The attorney produced several documents. The government again requested the documents under its initial subpoena and advised the attorney 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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0330p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bowling was convicted in state court of murdering Tina and Eddie Earley and sentenced to death. His conviction and death sentence were affirmed by Kentucky courts on direct appeal and in post conviction proceedings. He contends that he was denied proper jury instructions. Given a sentence that was constitutionally disproportionate. Eddie and Tina Earley were shot to death in their automobile in a parking lot outside a Lexington dry cleaning establishment. Parker No. 01 5832 year old son Christopher was also shot. The police determined that the Earleys' car must have been hit by a 1981 light blue Chevrolet Malibu. They also determined that a 1981 Malibu was registered in the county to Bowling. They pursued several theories of who could have murdered the Earleys. Were worried because they had not seen Bowling. Who was affectionately known as T.C. Was not there. Bowling was represented at trial by three attorneys: Baldani. The court's stated goal in voir dire was to qualify forty four of the ninety nine pooled jurors.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/013789P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An alien who illegally reenters this country after a prior deportation violates 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and is subject to imprisonment for not more than two years. The Guidelines offense levels for illegal reentry offenses are found in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Alcaras and Gomez concede their prior crimes were aggravated felonies for purposes of § 1326(b)(2). The 2 district court1 determined that each was a felony crime of violence and imposed the sixteen level enhancement in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The issue is whether the defendants' prior convictions require a sixteen level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). That guideline provides: If the defendant previously was deported. After (A) a conviction for a felony that is (i) a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months. The defendants' prior convictions do not fall within this guideline unless they were felonies and crimes of violence. Crime of violence is defined in application note 1(B)(ii) to § 2L1.2. Alcaras was sentenced by the HONORABLE HAROLD D.
</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/1913AC6563A34FCD8825729C0058ABB3/$file/0530347.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was sentenced to a term 2918 UNITED STATES v. While two law enforcement officers members of the West Side Interagency Narcotics Team were interviewing a witness in a narcotics investigation in the front yard of a residence in Hillsboro. An alert was immediately issued for police to look for
</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/19972319.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether an attorney who provided no defense at the guilt or penalty phase was ineffective in defending a young drug dealer. Who was an alcohol and drug abuser. When relief was denied in district court. We VACATE the denial of habeas relief as to the death sentence and REMAND to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if petitioner is entitled to habeas relief because of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. Who was unemployed but a drug dealer and For factual completeness to address the issues on appeal in our independent review. We include facts from affidavits and expert reports that were exhibits at the 3.850 proceeding but were not part of the record before the district court. It was evident that we needed to review them. The exhibits were filed as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI2MTktb3AgQW1lbmRlZCB3IEVycmF0YS5wZGY=/05-2619-op%20Amended%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
* The sole revision to this opinion is the addition of footnote **. Who are in agreement. Have decided the petition pursuant to 2d Cir. Circuit Judge: Before us are two petitions for a writ of mandamus brought by W.R. Both petitions are based on the recently enacted Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI2MTktb3AgUmV2aXNlZF9vcG4ucGRm/05-2619-op%20Revised_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judges.** * The sole revision to this opinion is the addition of footnote **. Who are in agreement. Have decided the petition pursuant to 2d Cir. Circuit Judge: Before us are two petitions for a writ of mandamus brought by W.R. Both petitions are based on the recently enacted Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI2MTktb3Bfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2619-op_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Before us are two petitions for a writ of mandamus brought by W.R. Both petitions are based on the recently enacted Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (
</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//oct2001/99-4094.op2.html">UNITED STATES V. FULFORD (10/2/2001, NO. 99-4094)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/755DCE2573CAD49488256EA10083CB6B/$file/0330362.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This provision was the subject of our recent decision in United States v. Which was announced after Fish's sentencing. We are guided by Wenner to conclude that Fish's predicate crime of possession of a destructive device did not constitute a
</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/05a0465p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION Defendant/Appellant Jerome Hadley was charged in a single count indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was found guilty by a jury following a two day trial. Was sentenced to a 262 month term of imprisonment. Defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing under the rule announced in United States v. Were hosting a few friends and relatives at their residence on North Moore Road in Chattanooga. The dispatcher further advised Officer Williams that the 911 call was on an
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1411_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Louis James was convicted of possession of more than fifty grams of crack cocaine (Count I). He was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. When both were living at a local motel. Collier learned from others at the motel that James was selling cocaine. Tiara Woods was in the house with her aunt. Woods asked who was knocking but did not open the door. Inside the shoebox was a pair of size 10 sneakers. On top of the sneakers were a small scale. Inside the glove was a loaded .25 caliber handgun. James' fingerprint was discovered on one of the baggies of cocaine found inside the shoe. Who was manufacturing and distributing crack from the Ash Street house. In which James and Woods were passengers. Or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. The government informed the court that this evidence was seized on February 10. Only a week after the crimes that were charged in the indictment. Drug paraphernalia and cash seized from Ash Street and from the contemporaneous traffic stop were admissible as evidence intricately related to the crime charged.
</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/C5CF14D3C1F85AB28825733F004E5B2F/$file/0630368.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The following facts were established: On September 21. The driver of which was Grigg
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/011961P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Securities law class action suits were then filed and consolidated in the Eastern District of Missouri. Though mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. We will issue the writ when the district court has committed a clear error of law or abuse of discretion in ordering the disclosure of privileged materials
</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/200015795.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We also vacate the sentence for the underlying drug offenses because it included a weapon enhancement for the possession of the weapons that were part of the same course of conduct for which the defendant has been convicted. Was dismissed prior to trial. Were tried before a jury. He was sentenced to 115 months imprisonment on the drug crimes. He was also sentenced to a consecutive five year term on Count One. Were approached by several males who offered to sell them marijuana and crack cocaine. One of the individuals who was present but did not 4 participate in the sale was Clifford Timmons. That Timmons was not surprised when the undercover officers asked about getting two
</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=05-7023.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Pamela Raye Howell was indicted for six drug and firearms offenses arising from events occurring in Cherokee County. Oklahoma on August 25 and (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. 2003.(1) She was convicted of four counts: Count One. Howell was sentenced to concurrent terms of 189 months imprisonment on all counts except the firearm offense. Who was wanted for manufacturing methamphetamine and firearms violations. A mobile home and a fifth wheel travel trailer were on the property. Concerned that anyone inside the structures might have been overcome by the toxic fumes. Quickly surveying the interior to see if anyone was inside. As it is not our responsibility to
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994162.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 2 the sentence is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-13065.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PLUMMER (8/11/2000, NO. 99-13065)<BR></A><BR>
A United States and Bahamian citizen whose boat allegedly was in possession of over $50. 000 dollars worth of Cuban cigars when it was halted off the Florida coast. Plummer was charged in Count I with attempting to smuggle the cigars into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 and in Count II with unauthorized transportation outside of the United States of merchandise manufactured in Cuba in violation of the Trading With the Enemy Act. Holding that Defendant was not inside United States territorial waters when seized and thus could not be guilty of attempted smuggling. The allegations are straightforward. Count II alleges that Plummer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3BBEFED89B7DD25F88256E4A006CDE70/$file/0199018p.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. 2553 2554 BELMONTES v. This conclusion is in error for three reasons. It made special findings that Belmontes was the actual killer and that he had the specific intent that death occur. Simply allowing a defendant to present mitigating evidence to the jury is not enough.
</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/2002/07/01-2122.htm">01-2122 -- U.S. V. WISEMAN -- 07/18/2002<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</strong> <p> Appellant Lonnie Ray Wiseman was convicted. The jury was not instructed to find the type of firearm used. Wiseman was nevertheless sentenced to a ten year term of imprisonment for the first
</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/dec94/93-6955.html">UNITED STATES V. MOORE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court found that the essential elements of the crime under section 924(c)(1) are identical to those in section 2119. Therefore held that cumulatively punishing Moore and Hewlett under the two statutes was a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause.<p> <b>ISSUE</b><p> <p> The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether charging a defendant for the same acts or occurrences under both 18 U.S.C.
</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/FC965F7C79368A3D88256D96006F583F/$file/9750468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants were charged with various offenses arising from their involvement with the Mexican Mafia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. SHRYOCK 12843 of the several issues are contained in the portions of this opinion in which those issues are addressed. The factual recitals are based on trial testimony and other evidence that the jury could reasonably have credited in reaching its verdicts. Appellants were named in a thirty one count superseding indictment charging them and ten others.1 The charges stemmed from Appellants' involvement with the Mexican Mafia. Testified that the Mexican Mafia is a prison gang formed in the 1950s by Hispanic street gang members incarcerated at the Deuel Vocational Institution. Benjamin Peters and Victor Murillo were tried together with Appellants. Ambrose Gill's case was severed and he pled guilty following Appellants' trial. 1 12844 UNITED STATES v. As members were released from state custody. The gang had numerous associates who aspired to become members and were willing to commit crimes on the Mexican Mafia's behalf in hopes of attaining membership.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2003.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. The firm that sent him the tape was part of a law enforcement operation designed to catch child pornography buyers. Claiming that the child pornography statute is unconstitutional. That the government's search warrant (for the tape in his house) was constitutionally defective. Or which contains materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported. (B) such visual depiction is of such conduct. We do not accept the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the statute is unconstitutional. In the view of all courts to have considered the matter since the X Citement Video decision. That is to say.
</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//aug2000/99-13065.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PLUMMER (8/11/2000, NO. 99-13065)<BR></A><BR>
A United States and Bahamian citizen whose boat allegedly was in possession of over $50. 000 dollars worth of Cuban cigars when it was halted off the Florida coast. Plummer was charged in Count I with attempting to smuggle the cigars into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 and in Count II with unauthorized transportation outside of the United States of merchandise manufactured in Cuba in violation of the Trading With the Enemy Act. Holding that Defendant was not inside United States territorial waters when seized and thus could not be guilty of attempted smuggling. The allegations are straightforward. Count II alleges that Plummer
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1619.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee. Petitioner William Gilday was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of armed robbery for his involvement 25 years ago in a notorious bank robbery in which Boston Police Officer Walter A. Schroeder was killed. Was reactivated after disposition of the last of his four unsuccessful motions for new trial in the Massachusetts courts. A lengthy description of the evidence presented at Gilday's five week trial is reported in Commonwealth v. A full chronology of the proceedings since his 1972 conviction is set out in the district court's opinion. Gilday and five others were indicted on robbery and murder charges.1 Evidence indicated that the group had planned a 1 The other defendants charged in the crime were Stanley R. Michael Fleischer was charged as an accessory after the fact. Is now free. Was seated in a white Ambassador automobile across the street from the bank . . . . Gilday was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death. The death sentence was changed to a sentence of life imprisonment.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1326_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reggie Golden pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 200 months imprisonment. Golden objected to the PreSentence Investigation Report's recommendation that he was subject to the sentencing enhancement provision of § 924(e). Golden conceded that his convictions for possession of a short barreled shotgun and false imprisonment were violent felonies. The district court then determined that the applicable guideline sentence was 188 to 235 months and sentenced Golden to 200 months of imprisonment. A defendant who violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and who has at least three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Whether a prior offense constitutes a
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1978.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 2. Was on brief for respondent. Feinberg and Segal & Feinberg were on brief for petitioner. Stephen Rossetti was acquitted of armed robbery in state court. He was convicted in state court of conspiracy to commit the same robbery. Much of the evidence used in the two trials was the same. 000 in cash from the truck and was carrying it toward the bank entrance when he was approached by three men. Who testified that he was a fourth participant in the December 4 robbery who had been waiting in a second car to assist if necessary by blocking pursuers. His testimony was crucial to the prosecution's 2 2 case. Although there was ample evidence of the robbery. Nor was there any eye witness evidence. Smith was not an ideal witness. He was also promised a plane ticket to anywhere in the United States. Rossetti was the sole defendant and was charged with armed robbery. The Commonwealth was prohibited from trying the conspiracy in the same trial as the substantive offense unless the defendant moved for joinder.
</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/200510066.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4717_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on two counts: (1) attempt to possess and to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and (2) knowingly and corruptly persuading another person. Muhammad was tried on September 14. He was sentenced to 135 months in prison on the first count and 60 months in prison on the second count. The sentences were to run concurrently. He now contends that venue was improper. That the district court erred in not instructing the jury on venue and that his constitutional rights were infringed when the Government introduced evidence that Mr. Muhammad had called his attorney after a vehicle driven by his companions in the scheme was stopped for a traffic violation. That vehicle subsequently was found to contain cocaine. Muhammad also purchased a new 1 This witness tampering charge is not before this court on appeal. Muhammad's bag was searched at a stop in New Mexico. Kovacs was unable to find someone to watch her son. The manager was not available.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyNjJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1262_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Vitug contends that venue was not properly laid in the Southern District of New York with respect to ten of the substantive counts for which she was convicted.1 We agree as to counts Six through Nine for visa fraud. Were charged on October 17. DOL
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-3556.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ROSS (12/19/1997, NO. 96-3556)<BR></A><BR>
The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams and their co conspirators created shell corporations and contrived deceptive paper transactions that had no economic substance.</P> <P> Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. Under separate headings.</P> <P> We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error.</P> <P> We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering.</P> <P><CENTER>I</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.
</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/200516363.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court granted a certificate of appealability on Jennings's claim that his sentence was rendered unconstitutional by the application of two invalid aggravating factors that the murder 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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BC642D9E0A161EC882572D8004C49BE/$file/0499010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We confront once again the question whether defense counsel's performance during the sentencing phase of a capital trial was so deficient as to violate the defendant's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Appellant Joe Leonard Lambright and his co defendant Robert Smith were convicted of first degree murder. Lambright was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Arizona courts on direct appeal and in state post conviction proceedings. After the case was returned to the panel for resolution of Lambright's remaining claims. Further ruled that even if the performance was deficient. Lambright was not prejudiced thereby. Because we conclude that trial counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial. Lambright and Smith were traveling across the country with Lambright's girlfriend. Smith complained to Lambright about the fact that he did not have a traveling companion with whom he could engage in sexual relations. Owen died as a result of her injuries.1 After the trio was arrested.
</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/200515110.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While Reed was making dinner. While they were talking. Henyard told her he was going to a night club in Orlando and to see his father in South Florida. The Lewis girls were crying and upset. This is Satan.
</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=04-1098.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Broomfield violated the terms of his probation and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. <hr> (2) As used in this section.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI3NDYtY3IgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-2746-cr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Richard Bondi argue that Scheidler II invalidates all of the Hobbs Act counts in this case that were premised on the extortion of intangible property rights. Which can be satisfied regardless of whether the property right at issue is tangible or intangible. We remand Peter Gotti's case for consideration of resentencing pursuant to This decision is frequently abbreviated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI3NDYtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2746-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 in which the Supreme Court tightened the requirements for finding that a defendant has 1 This decision is frequently abbreviated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/87B2B1B7765B6AA788256D510082634B/$file/0199005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alcala was sentenced to death following his conviction for first degree murder. He is currently in prison. Challenging the district court's conclusions that (1) Alcala's constitutional rights were not violated when the state trial court admitted Crappa's prior testimony. (5) these failures to investigate were not constitutional deficiencies that could be included in the cumulative error analysis. Alcala was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. It is this trial that is at issue before us. He again was sentenced to death. They were at Huntington Beach at approximately 2:00 or 3:00 that afternoon when a man asked if he could take their pictures for a school contest. She testified that he was wearing a striped. That it was a long sleeved shirt. After Alcala was arrested. He testified that he was certain that the man had been wearing a blue Hawaiian shirt and had the impression that the man had on cut off shorts and sandals. Testified at trial that they were at Huntington Beach the day before Samsoe's disappearance.
</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/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-3171a.html">USA V. DYCE AMRHU<BR></A><BR>
</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/07a0312p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 Budd was convicted on each. CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT TO MOORE CHARGE Budd was convicted of using excessive force against inmate Brandon Moore in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The indictment was constructively amended. [a] constructive amendment results when the terms of an indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than the one charged in the indictment. Both actual and constructive amendments are considered per se prejudicial and are reversible error. Are not per se prejudicial. A variance
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-3556.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ROSS (12/19/1997, NO. 96-3556)<BR></A><BR>
The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams and their co conspirators created shell corporations and contrived deceptive paper transactions that had no economic substance.</P> <P> Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. Under separate headings.</P> <P> We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error.</P> <P> We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering.</P> <P><CENTER>I</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.
</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/05/08/043753P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is uncontested. Was for a controlled substance offense. The second predicate conviction was based alternatively on Lindquist's Iowa conviction for operating a vehicle without the owner's consent or his Iowa conviction for third degree burglary of a motor vehicle. The district court calculated a sentencing range of 110 to 120 months.1 The district court then sentenced Lindquist to 110 months' The guidelines range for a defendant such as Lindquist with a total offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of VI is 110 to 137 months. Because the statutory maximum sentence for a violation of § 922(g) is 10 years. Lindquist's effective guidelines range was 110 to 120 months. 21 imprisonment based on a mandatory application of the guidelines and announced an alternative sentence of 110 months' imprisonment based on its discretion after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
</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/061795p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Detectives Jeffrey Silvers and Andrea Janvier were patrolling Wilmington. The pedestrian informed the detectives that two men who were later identified as Defendant Tracy Lamar Fisher and Rashee Lamont Hunter had attempted to rob him at gunpoint. Silvers was able to tackle Fisher and take him into custody. Both of which are class E felonies under Delaware law. The PSR recommended a two level enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4) because the firearm was stolen. The District Court found Silvers's testimony credible as it 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://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/971412.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We have granted en banc review to resolve a conflict in our court's jurisprudence that has surfaced following the publication of United States v. We granted the government's petition for rehearing and vacated the panel decision.2 We will now affirm the convictions entered against defendants Universal Rehabilitation Services (PA). Inc. (
</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/07/02/061876P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court concluded that TorresVillalobos's prior conviction in Minnesota for second degree manslaughter was an
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024192.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
JEFFCOAT Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Co op. 1995) were crimes of violence for the purposes of the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(a)(2) (2000). The issue on appeal is whether the district court properly considered Jeffcoat's prior convictions as crimes of violence under the sentencing guidelines. 1 were
</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/19963556.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error. We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/382F42A0571723A588257184007D6C01/$file/0373117.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that Francisco Morales Alegria was removable because he had been convicted of an
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-4147.htm">01-4147 -- U.S. V. DUNNE -- 04/01/2003<BR></A><BR>
2(b) is implicit in every charge. The charged offense is barred by the statute of limitations. 1001 is not a continuing violation for statute of limitations purposes. <p> <strong>II. BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Dunne was engaged by PanWorld Minerals International. Counts I through III of the indictment involved only Weeks and Hesterman and are not relevant to this appeal. DUNNE signed an audit opinion for the 1993 financial statements stating his audit of PanWorld was done in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) and the financial statements were presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Knew that the financial statements were not presented in accordance with GAAP. DUNNE took no steps to satisfy the requirements of generally accepted auditing standards to determine if the Washington Gulch interest was properly included in the PanWorld financial statements. 1993 were presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Such was not the case.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/130DF922B0AA80C9882570D8007920C5/$file/0230429.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that this prior conviction should have been excluded under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). So affirm all grounds on which the sentence was based. That he was found thereafter in the United States without permission on June 30. His conviction for threats to do harm did not warrant a criminal history point because it should have been excluded under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) as being similar to the offense of disorderly conduct. The stipulated 995 Motion further provided the following facts: Juana was saying goodbye to her boyfriend. Cleo was saying goodbye to her boyfriend. Maria was getting into the van. The defendant was telling Blanca that he wanted to take her home. There was a lot of commotion. He said he was going to follow the van. Juana was driving. Alisia was in the passenger seat. The other women were in two bench seats that are against the sides of the wall of the van. While the van was on Route 129 headed towards Watsonville. Alisia was awakened by Juana saying.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/82BE8D195C1DDF3788256EC2007E323C/$file/0230429.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that this prior conviction should have been excluded under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). That he was found thereafter in the United States without permission on June 30. His conviction for threats to do harm did not warrant a criminal history point because it should have been excluded under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) as being similar to the offense of disorderly conduct. HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ 8667
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CEB62CA6D36B3EBF88256B5E005C1D46/$file/9999019.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Turner was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and robbery. The special circumstance of robbery murder was found to be true. He was sentenced to death on December 21. There is no question that Turner killed his victim he admitted as much or that the circumstances reveal the seamy underside of life and death in a central California farming community. There is a serious question as to whether Turner would be on death row today had his counsel. Who told the court he was unprepared to proceed with the penalty phase. This is a question we cannot answer on this undeveloped record. Thaddaeus Turner was imprisoned from June 1982 to September 1983 after pleading guilty to possession of stolen property. Because he did not have a car. Turner was already
</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/00a0002p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This criminal prosecution pertains to one of six defendants who were tried on charges of conspiracy to conduct and participate in a Detroit based racketeer influenced and corrupt organization.1 Appellant Jack W. Tocco (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Travon Gardner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on four counts: (1) conspiracy to possess. Which was to run concurrently with his 240 month sentences on the first two convictions. Gardner's total sentence was 300 months of imprisonment. Which was denied by the district court. Because Gardner's sentence of 300 months will remain the same despite the reversal of one of his convictions. I. BACKGROUND Ricky Collins was arrested for drug violations in the fall of 2003 by Mike Thompson. McMillion responded that he would have to get in touch with his people to see what they wanted and asked Collins for the price for five kilograms. Collins'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://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0DC97BD5111E33578825730C004BD410/$file/0499010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2007 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. The word
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-5201.htm">99-5201 -- U.S. V. MALONE -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984391.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 98 4391 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Bruce Elliott Little pleaded guilty and was convicted of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C.A.§§ 2113(a) (West 1984 & Supp. 1998) and 2 (West 1969 & Supp. 1998). We agree that the determination of Little's sentence was improper and remand for resentencing. Little was convicted of committing assault on a female under the law of North Carolina.1 Adding the assault conviction to another reported conviction for common law robbery resulted in Little being categorized as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines states: 1 Assault on a female is a common law crime in North Carolina consisting of two essential elements: (1) assault. App. 1978). 2 A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction. (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/70EBD2AB09CEFD6188256D7C0078964F/$file/0230089.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Robert Belless was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm. He challenges his federal conviction on the grounds that his prior misdemeanor conviction is not within the firearm statute's definition of a crime of domestic violence. That the misdemeanor conviction was invalid for the purposes of the federal statute because he pleaded guilty without the benefit of counsel and was not properly advised of his rights before he entered his plea. Kristen Belless was married to Robert Belless when he committed battery against her. He was put in jail. Who moved unsuccessfully to have Belless's plea vacated. Belless was sentenced to serve ninety days. Belless was indicted in federal court for the felony of possessing a firearm
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-6146.htm">02-6146 -- ALLEN V. MULLIN -- 05/19/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/061876P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court concluded that TorresVillalobos's prior conviction in Minnesota for second degree manslaughter was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6146EB287D3927188256E2800820C29/$file/0199007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. 2003 is amended as follows: The language beginning with the last paragraph on page 808. Is replaced with the following (with footnotes renumbered in the remainder of the opinion): Recognizing that Gray's behavior might be labeled a tactical decision. Was both completely uninformed and so unreasonable as to be constitutionally deficient. Counsel may also choose not to pursue a particular investigation if such a choice is reasonable. Gray was faced with a client who had freely confessed extensive involvement with two homicides prior to Gray's involvement in the case. Gray's decision not to investigate that crime was objectively reasonable.1 Beardslee insists that the strategic choice to offer complete cooperation was so misguided that it cannot be constitutionally permissible. The judge hearing the motion to substitute counsel said he would have adopted the same strategy. Although in hindsight some other strategy may have been preferable.
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/00-6090.htm">00-6090 -- BRYAN V. MULLIN -- 07/21/2003<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</strong></center> <p> Robert Leroy Bryan was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first degree malice murder and sentenced to death. <em>See Bryan v. (3) counsel was ineffective at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because counsel failed to present mental health evidence. (4) he was incompetent to stand trial. A panel of this court unanimously concluded that Bryan was not entitled to relief on his evidence sufficiency. Was almost entirely circumstantial. A potted plant was also found at Inabel's home. A pillowcase was duct taped over her head. There was a single set of vehicle tracks present at the scene. The tracks matched the tread pattern of the right rear tire on Bryan's rental car. <p> Authorities searched the property where Inabel's body was found because. Like that on the property where Inabel's body was discovered. Fibers lining the trunk were similar to those on Inabel's clothes and tape found on or near her body. <p> Police located additional evidence in Bryan's bedroom tying Bryan to the murder.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6F446027BFC93806882570650058396A/$file/0470557.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this appeal is whether the crime of sexual battery under California Penal Code § 243.4(a) constitutes an
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034032.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that his prior Virginia conviction for larceny from the person should not have been counted as a predicate offense for purposes of applying the career offender guideline. He was subsequently charged with distributing heroin. The presentence report (PSR) recommended application of the career offender guideline because Smith was at least 18 years old at the time of the offense of conviction (he was 42). The offense of conviction was a felony controlled substance offense. Smith had previously been convicted of two felonies that were either controlled substance offenses or crimes of violence. Which was VI even without application of the career offender guideline. Smith's guideline range would have been 24 30 months. Arguing that larceny from the person is not a UNITED STATES v. The guidelines provide that a defendant must be sentenced as a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction. (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012280.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 13
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyNjJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1262_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Vitug contends that venue was not properly laid in the Southern District of New York with respect to ten of the substantive counts for which she was convicted.1 We agree as to counts Six through Nine for visa fraud. Were charged on October 17. DOL
</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/96/08/953021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jimmy Foley (defendants) were convicted following a jury trial in the district court1 of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Foley was also convicted of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Arguing that there was no federal jurisdiction to convict them for conspiracy to commit arson because of an insufficient connection to The Honorable Harold D. That there was insufficient evidence to convict them of a conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. That their convictions for conspiracy to commit arson and for using and carrying a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence and during a drug trafficking crime were duplicative. A second bomb was thrown through the living room Ulysses Burns. Who was renting the house. Three small children were asleep in the living room when the bomb was thrown into the house. Were were engaged to in the business into of According marijuana base to testimony at trial. Who were allegedly members of the distribution distribution. sales. beginning branch out cocaine Defendants had targeted Burns for assassination because.
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0314.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This omission by Humphries' counsel was. Humphries was successfully prosecuted in South Carolina state court. Humphries was sentenced to death for murder. Humphries' application for postconviction relief in South Carolina state court was dismissed by the Common Pleas Court on December 21. His appeal was rejected by the South Carolina Supreme Court on August 26. A federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless the state court's holding
</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.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-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFD8078CFB96F20288256F540055B0ED/$file/9955477.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner was convicted of murder and robbery in state court and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. The most significant of which is that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Was found dead on the sixth level of a parking garage in downtown Los Angeles. No suspects were found at the scene when police arrived. They found that he was carrying a matchbook from Shalimar. Written inside the matchbook was a 19 digit phone number. He was tried for murder and robbery. The key issue at trial was identity. The only other eyewitnesses were a CPA named Kevin Shorts who parked on the sixth level of the structure about the time of the crime and said he saw petitioner together with one Michael Smith. A parking lot attendant who specially marked the tickets of those who didn't have to pay because they were in the parking lot for less than five minutes or so. Who was 46 years old at the time. M. The only physical evidence that could link petitioner to the crime was the matchbook with the phone number written inside.
</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.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-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410325.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
15) denying Brown the right to be present and to cross examine witnesses after this Court remanded the case for construction of the record. 2 1 The facts of this tragic case are straightforward and are taken from the testimony of the trial witnesses and from the last of Brown's three confessions. Which was recorded and presented to the jury by audiotape. Was a part time postmistress in the small town of Fleming. She was working in the Fleming Post Office on the morning of November 30. When she was stabbed to death. Was working in the Post Office with Gaglia between 8:00 a.m. and about 9:30 or 9:45 a.m. that day. As he was exiting the Post Office. Washington heard the man say his name was
</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.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-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0430p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Portela contends that the district court erroneously enhanced his sentence because his prior Tennessee conviction for vehicular assault was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014548.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court departed downward from the applicable Sentencing Guideline range by reducing the offense level that would otherwise have resulted. I. Daniel Alejo Alejo is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 1989 when he was 17 years old. Alejo Alejo was convicted in North Carolina state court for. Which was behind Alejo Alejo. Was killed. Alejo Alejo fled the scene of the accident and was later arrested. Alejo Alejo received a five year sentence and was released from prison on October 1. Once he was released from prison. Alejo Alejo was deported in March 2000. He was charged with violating 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). A Presentence Report (
</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/97/07/961420P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Magill was a Circuit Judge in active service at the time this case was submitted. Before this opinion was filed. Alfredo Baca Valenzuela was indicted on one count of illegally reentering the United States after being deported subsequent to conviction of an aggravated felony. Baca Valenzuela pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the district court 3 to 51 months in prison. As well as the 1995 conviction and sentence from which the present appeal is taken. Baca Valenzuela was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona for aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to ten The Honorable D. Conviction of a felony such as the controlled substances offense for which Baca Valenzuela was arrested was a deportable offense. 8 U.S. Reentry into the United States after deportation carried a maximum penalty of two years in prison. 8 U.S.C.§ 1326 (1987) While Baca Valenzuela was imprisoned. Or is found in. Section 602 of the 1990 Act amended 8 U.S.C. § 1251 to provide specifically that conviction of an aggravated felony was grounds for deportation.
</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/1998/03/96-3317.htm">96-3317 -- U.S. V. SVACINA -- 03/02/1998<BR></A><BR>
Was indicted on two counts: (I) possession with the intent to distribute more than 100 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine. Count I was dismissed and Defendant pled guilty to Count II. Defendant was sentenced on September 16. Defendant challenges only his sentence on appeal. <p align=
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0053p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While conceding he was removable on other grounds. Page 2 conviction for possession of heroin was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1017p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the district court ruled that burglary of a hotel room was not the equivalent of burglary of a dwelling. McClenton was not sentenced as a career offender. The sole purpose of which is to provide temporary lodging and a place to sleep. We will vacate the district court's judgment of sentence and remand this matter for resentencing in accordance with our interpretation of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines. Michael McClenton was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. A sentencing hearing was held. Were accurate.[fn1] Rather. McClenton asserted that these were not burglaries of dwellings. The district court ruled that the burglary of a hotel room is not the equivalent of the burglary of a dwelling. He would have received a criminal history category of VI. We have jurisdiction to review McClenton's sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)(2). The starting point for our analysis is Section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Section 4B1.1 provides that a defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time of the instant offense.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1549.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: On page 5. Was on brief. Circuit Judge. whether larceny from the person is a crime of violence within the meaning of the federal sentencing guidelines.
</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/01/05/001699P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hill alleges: (1) the district court's1 admission of a past crime under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) was erroneous. (3) the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction. Based upon Coleman's identification of Hill as the drug dealer who was staying in Ferris' apartment. The Government alleged that such evidence was appropriate to show Hill's intent. Arguing that intent was at issue because Hill's defense was
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D64F251C6468154C88256D4800727535/$file/0250211.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Footnote 9. Assuming without deciding that Rivera's methodology is legally correct. We find no merit in his argument because Rivera has not shown that the common law of attempt in 1952 was well established in the form that he claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/991973.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the sentence and remand. I The facts are undisputed. Bockius was the president and one of four principals of Asset Protection Management. The exact amount is unclear. Bockius' Pre Sentence Report states
</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/00/01/984065P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He also contends that he is not subject to the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 4042(b) (1994 and Supp. The language of section 3621(e)(2)(B) is permissive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0116.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Continuation of footnote 6 a paragraph is added which states: Our conclusion that there is but one offense of common law murder in North Carolina is also fatal to Hartman's claim that subject matter jurisdiction is not established unless all the elements of a crime are alleged in the charging document. Hartman primarily contends that his constitutional right to adequate notice of the charges against him was violated by the use of a short form indictment.2 Because at least one judge of the panel has concluded that Hartman
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEB226D1B4D7C75788256E5A00707D0C/$file/9899022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Procedural History Phillips was convicted on January 31. Phillips was once again sentenced to death on March 13. Two of those petitions were denied following evidentiary hearings. The other two were denied without hearings. Holding that the extraordinary delay that Phillips had already experienced in seeking review of his constitutional claims justified consideration of his guilt phase claims even though his death sentence was still under review in the California courts and would be for another five years. That he is factually innocent of capital murder. Its motion was denied on January 14. The first was denied without prejudice on October 17. The second was denied on July 13. This appeal followed.1 1 While this appeal was pending. Phillips's second death sentence was affirmed by the California Supreme Court on January 24. The conviction portion of which is now before us. So that the two parts of Phillips's habeas proceeding may be considered together and so that any future appeal will present all conviction and sentencing issues at one time. 14477 B.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0051p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
5 were dism issed. (2) the district court should not have granted a four level sentence enhancement for abduction on a conviction for a kidnapping offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(5). A sentencing hearing was held for each defendant. Who was armed with an unloaded .38 caliber pistol tucked into the front waist band of his pants. She was released around 4 p.m. The defendants were arrested a short time later. U nlawful R estraint: (a) Base Offense Level: 24 (b) Specific Offense Characteristics (1) If a ransom demand or a demand upon government was made. Or (C) if the degree of injury is between that specified in subdivisions (A ) and (B ). Increase by 3 levels. (3) If a dangerous weapo n was used. Increa se by 2 levels. (4)(A) If the victim was not released before thirty days had elapsed. (B) If the victim was not released before seven days had elapsed. (C) If the victim was released before twenty four hours had elapsed. Decrease by 1 lev el. (5) If the victim was sexually exp loited: increase by 3 levels. (6) If the victim is a minor 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://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9535.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was placed in removal proceedings based on his conviction in a Colorado state court for third degree assault. Respondent asserted that this conviction was a
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/260FAB8F1F86F35288256F2D00818B87/$file/0330482.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Kim Renee Smith (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FD89E0111BECD15888256D8E005A3A94/$file/0230079.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were socializing at Pioneer Park. When approximately nine white supremacists who were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/97-3268.htm">97-3268 -- U.S. V. PEARSON -- 02/22/2000<BR></A><BR>
(6) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that he committed felony murder as defined by 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3BE0A97B811071F0882572DB00571333/$file/0550729.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether a defendant's prior California conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor qualifies as a
</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/2000/04/98-3285.htm">98-3285 -- STORTS V. HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS INC. -- 04/06/2000<BR></A><BR>
Hardee's' primary contentions are that the district court's instructions on the duty to provide security and the duty to warn of a dangerous condition. Were not supported by the evidence. The suit is barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that although the evidence is sufficient to establish the existence and breach of the duty to provide security. This error requires reversal because it is impossible to determine from the general verdict whether the jury relied on the improperly submitted duty to warn theory of negligence. The remaining claims of error are without merit. She was admitted to St. Oklahoma because she had overdosed on drugs and alcohol and was suffering from depression. Of which she was an intended third party beneficiary. The case was tried to a jury. Hardee's argues that Storts's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The jury instructions regarding duty were erroneous. A civil action is deemed commenced on the date the complaint is filed. Provided service of process is obtained within ninety days of the date of filing. <u>See</u> Kan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-6361.htm">99-6361 -- SALLAHDIN V. GIBSON -- 01/04/2002<BR></A><BR>
Raising the following issues: (1) four challenges concerning the jury and whether Sallahdin was deprived of due process of law and a fair and impartial jury. (2) whether the information was constitutionally adequate. (3) whether the trial court's failure to define life without parole for the jury was constitutional error. (5) whether the two aggravators applied to his sentencing are supported by sufficient evidence. (6) whether the continuing threat aggravator is unconstitutional because it is vague and applied in a standardless manner. (7) whether the jury instructions failed to inform the jury that it did not have to be unanimous to find and apply mitigating circumstances to his sentence. (8) whether Sallahdin was deprived of admissible mitigation evidence concerning steroid induced psychosis. 1291. <p> Sallahdin's most troubling challenge concerns whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence of the effects of Sallahdin's steroid use on his behavior at the time of the crime.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6282.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kevin Young was convicted of first degree murder for shooting and killing Joseph Sutton during a robbery at the Charles Steak House (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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2392.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. Arguing that she was inadequately informed of the elements of the crime to which she pleaded guilty. We affirm Medina's conviction.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I.</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> Medina was a police officer for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico when she became involved in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Medina was indicted on seven counts along with three co defendants. Which was granted.</P> <P> During the plea colloquy at issue. Medina informed the district court that although she was aware that there were weapons in the conspiracy. She herself never carried a weapon.</P> <P> The question before us is whether the colloquy that ensued demonstrates that the district court
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71247C032FA0577388256AE60060B0F9/$file/9899022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Procedural History Phillips was convicted on January 31. Phillips was once again sentenced to death on March 13. Two of those petitions were denied following evidentiary hearings. The other two were denied without hearings. Holding that the extraordinary delay that Phillips had already experienced in seeking review of his constitutional claims justified consideration of his guilt phase claims even though his death sentence was still under review in the California courts and would be for another five years. That he is factually innocent of capital murder. Its motion was denied on January 14. The first was denied without prejudice on October 17. The second was denied on July 13. This appeal followed.1 1 While this appeal was pending. Phillips's second death sentence was affirmed by the California Supreme Court on January 24. The conviction portion of which is now before us. So that the two parts of Phillips's habeas proceeding may be considered together and so that any future appeal will present all conviction and sentencing issues at one time. 14477 B.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FAB26C809B07C0B88256DAA0077007C/$file/0230234.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Melton was charged in a two count indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Which imposes a mandatory fifteen year minimum sentence for violators of § 922(g) who have three prior convictions for violent felonies. Melton preserved the right to argue that he was not subject to the ACCA. The United States Probation Office concluded that Melton was subject to 14250 UNITED STATES v. The district court did not count the 1982 Arizona burglary as an ACCA predicate felony because there was insufficient documentation of the conviction. DISCUSSION [1] The ACCA's penalty enhancement provisions are applicable if a defendant has been convicted. A
</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/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2993_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The prosecution repeated this evidence during its closing argument and also said Simpson had told a law enforcement agent he was a crack dealer and could have done the delivery at issue. The prosecution then told the jury that the inference to be drawn from these statements was that Simpson had done so many crack cocaine deals that he could not 2 No. 05 2993 remember the deal for which he was on trial. The evidence on which it was based. Because we are not assured that Simpson received a fair trial. Arguing that such evidence is not admissible to prove a defendant's propensity to commit a crime. The first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The case was subsequently retried before a second jury. The government presented Deputy Jim Stadt of the Will County Sheriff 's Office as the only eyewitness to identify Simpson. He viewed a photograph of a person identified to him as Robert Simpson and concluded that Simpson was the person he had observed leaving the minivan. Simpson was not present.
</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/05/09/043256P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district court erred in finding he was a career offender and The Honorable Linda R.
</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/053477p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Four groups are relevant to this appeal. Kemp was charged with two counts of honest services mail fraud for his role in an asset locator business that he created and operated with his friend. Holck and Umbrell were charged with eight counts of honest services wire fraud concerning their role in corrupting Kemp. Hawkins was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud. Hawkins The defendants were initially indicted on June 29. All references to the indictment refer to the superseding indictment. 2 1 White passed away before trial. 6 was charged with four counts of perjury stemming from false statements that Hawkins allegedly made while testifying before a grand jury investigating this case.3 B. Central to the government's case were tape recordings of scores of conversations between the defendants. These are but a selection of the charges included in the indictment. Kemp was charged with one count of conspiracy. Hawkins was charged with one count of conspiracy. Knight was charged with one count of conspiracy.
</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/044672p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ng is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and the petition for review will be denied. I. Ng is a native of Hong Kong and a citizen of the United Kingdom. He was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant on July 10. His status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident on May 20. Ng was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1958. He was sentenced to 121 months in prison. All with the intent of paying to have his thengirlfriend's husband murdered. Not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.
</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/2000/11/00-6169.htm">00-6169 -- FORSHEE V. FLEMING -- 11/08/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Prince Endra Forshee. Forshee is a federal prisoner filing a
</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/2000/11/97-3229.htm">97-3229 -- U.S. V. CHANTHADARA -- 11/01/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2331.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Klibaner & Sabino was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. I Background This is Doe's second sentencing appeal. We 2 2 held that this particular felony the
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/024084P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kamil Johnson were convicted of murder in aid of racketeering and sentenced to imprisonment for life without release. Was insufficient to support their convictions. They also contend that the statute under which they were convicted. Is unconstitutional because it overreaches Congress's power under the 2 Commerce Clause. Four year old Davisha BrantleyGillum was returning home from a day at a neighborhood festival. Was associated with a gang called the Bogus Boys. Some men standing behind a fence at the edge of the Amoco property began shooting into the car where Davisha was sitting. Police were unable to solve the crime until August 23. Williams was the leader of the St. Was also arrested and indicted. McGruder as the people who were involved in the Davisha Gillum case. Harut was charged with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering. Johnson and McGruder were indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1959. The state law alleged to have been violated was Minn. Which provides: Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life: (1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another . . . .
</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/055019np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Midgley was arrested in connection with the shooting of his girlfriend. Midgley was deported to Jamaica in 1999. Was arrested again on January 5. A 16 level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because he had been deported after a prior conviction for a felony that was a crime of violence. Midgley now argues that the 16 level enhancement was improper. Section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines provides for a 16 level enhancement if
</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/04a0140p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spirko's motion for a new trial was denied. His petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court and his petitions for post conviction relief were unsuccessful. 3) Spirko's trial counsel were ineffective because they did not investigate the alibi claim of Delaney Gibson. Who was indicted with Spirko for the murder. 6) Spirko was denied due process by the prosecution's use of a suggestive photo array and hypnotically refreshed testimony. 8) Spirko was denied due process as a result of several errors during the sentencing phase of the trial. We will not separately address any of Spirko's claims except those relating to the alleged Brady violations. The only Brady claim that Spirko actually argues in his brief is that the state withheld from him evidence that an individual named Delaney Gibson. Who was indicted with Spirko for the murder but escaped and remained a fugitive until well after Spirko had been tried and convicted. Could not have been present when the murder was committed. It is useful to recount the facts relevant to this claim.
</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/apr95/92-2812.man.html">STANO V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stano v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Gerald Eugene Stano was convicted and sentenced to death in 1983 for the 1974 murder of Cathy Scharf. The lengthy factual and procedural history of this case is set out in our previous en banc and panel opinions. <i>See Stano v. We are indebted to that court for the thoroughness with which it explored the relevant factual issues and for its meticulous findings of fact. Is reproduced as Appendix A hereto.<p> After the district court had issued its order on remand but before the case had been briefed to this Court. The district court's order denying that motion is reproduced as Appendix B hereto.<p> Stano appeals from the district court's adverse rulings on the issues we remanded to it. We may substitute our own judgment even in the absence of a conclusion that the district court's ruling was clearly erroneous.
</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//may2001/00-14729.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. GAY (5/18/2001, NO. 00-14729)<BR></A><BR>
An investigation was conducted by several state and federal drug enforcement agencies. While no contraband was seized as a result of this investigation. Gay and the government stipulated that Gay was accountable for at least 20 grams but less than 40 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</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/07a0356n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were indicted in the Western District of Michigan on drug and firearms charges. The defendants were charged in Count 1 with conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute over five grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846. Cobbs was also charged with distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) (Counts 2 and 3). Cornell stated that he would have to go somewhere to pick up the crack. Who was accompanied by a male passenger later identified as Mansour Harrell. The rocks of crack cocaine were individually wrapped in
</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/1B59F1C65CCCEE84882571A700811D4A/$file/0550092.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were later searched at an FBI computer lab. Even though she had not at that point been identified as a suspect and was not named as a target in the warrant. ADJANI the warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad or. Finding that the agents did not have sufficient probable cause to search Reinhold's computer. The agents should have obtained an additional search warrant. The district court's ruling on the motion to suppress is subject to de novo review. Including whether it is overbroad or not sufficiently particular. We refer to it as the
</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/apr2000/98-9085.man.html">HIGH V. HEAD (4/19/2000, NO. 98-9085)<BR></A><BR>
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case were briefly summarized in a previous opinion of this Court as follows:</P> <P> Jose High and his accomplices. Phillips was placed in the trunk of the car and Bullock in the back seat. High and his accomplices drove their captives to a remote site where they were to be eliminated. The 11 year old boy was taunted with threats of death as they rode in the back seat of the car. The victims were forced to lie face down in front of the car and were then shot. 1508 (11th Cir.1990) (footnote omitted).<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=05-2218.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Serna Gomez was arrested for illegally entering the United States after deportation to Mexico. Which held the sentencing guidelines are only advisory in nature. He was unaware of the illegality or penalties of reentering the United States after his deportation. 2) he was not aware his conduct was against the law. 3) the encounter was consensual. Serna Gomez's prior conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse was a
</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/06a0283p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was sentenced to death by an Ohio jury for the 1987 aggravated murder of Mari Anne Pope. Pope was babysitting two neighborhood children. He did not have the requisite intent for aggravated murder. Are presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence: In the early morning hours of August 13. The victim Mari Anne Pope was awakened in her home by appellant. Were also awakened. The children awoke to the voice of Mari Anne inquiring as to who this person was that had entered her home. The man asked if there were others in the house. To which she replied that there were two children upstairs. Who was lying upon her stomach. The children were admitted into a neighbor's home and police were called. Her nightgown was pulled up around her neck. She was drenched in blood with large holes in her body. The other officer responded that there was no one on the dining room floor and both officers began to search. Bagley Page 3 first officer to react testified that appellant was very quick and agile. The officer was unable to subdue appellant until two other officers entered the fray.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1609.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for Appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-14945.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ROOT (7/10/2002, NO. 01-14945)<BR></A><BR>
Root appeals his conviction and sentencing enhancement based on the fact that the
</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//apr95/92-2812.man.html">STANO V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stano v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Gerald Eugene Stano was convicted and sentenced to death in 1983 for the 1974 murder of Cathy Scharf. The lengthy factual and procedural history of this case is set out in our previous en banc and panel opinions. <i>See Stano v. We are indebted to that court for the thoroughness with which it explored the relevant factual issues and for its meticulous findings of fact. Is reproduced as Appendix A hereto.<p> After the district court had issued its order on remand but before the case had been briefed to this Court. The district court's order denying that motion is reproduced as Appendix B hereto.<p> Stano appeals from the district court's adverse rulings on the issues we remanded to it. We may substitute our own judgment even in the absence of a conclusion that the district court's ruling was clearly erroneous.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002203P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment to the Constitution. Henderson's habeas petition was filed before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). This appeal is subject to pre AEDPA standards of review. We were of course obligated to defer to the factual findings of the state court. The Supreme Court held that mixed questions of fact and law in habeas cases are reviewed de novo. We have reviewed state court interpretations of federal law de novo. 520 U.S. 1257 (1997). 2 We believe that our application of de novo review in pre AEDPA cases is consistent with the view of a majority of justices in Williams v. Federal courts were to exercise
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-3130a.html">USA V. GLOVER FRED M.<BR></A><BR>
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU1MjEtY3Zfb3BuIHcgRGlzc2VudC5wZGY=/04-5521-cv_opn%20w%20Dissent.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
J.) finding in favor of plaintiffappellee as to whether the speech at issue is a matter of public concern. Whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. 1 Affirmed. Hynes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that his demotion within and later firing from the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office was in unlawful retaliation for his exercise of his rights under the First Amendment. The jury returned a special verdict finding that: (1) Reuland had not shown that one of his motives was to address a matter of public concern. (2) Reuland had shown that his statement to New York magazine was a substantial or motivating factor in Hynes's decision to demote him. (3) Hynes had not shown that he would have demoted Reuland in any event because Hynes believed Reuland lied to him. (4) Reuland had not shown that his speech was a substantial or motiviating factor in his termination. Judge Gleeson ruled that the speaker's motive is not dispositive in determining whether speech is a matter of public concern and that Reuland's statement to New York magazine regarding the crime rate in Brooklyn is a matter of public concern.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3421_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While he was enrolled at Franklin Middle School in Champaign. He was repeatedly molested by the school's Dean of Students. That Champaign Community Schools Unit District No. 4 and various school officials were deliberately indifferent to the abuse. Because it was relevant to his claim for compensatory damages. We conclude the Does are entitled to a new trial for three reasons. I. BACKGROUND John Doe first enrolled at Franklin Middle School in 1993 as a sixth grader.1 The parties do not dispute that Doe was 1 John Doe and the other putative victims are all African Americans. Smith is Caucasian. Underprivileged African American boys because they were particularly vulnerable and less likely (continued...). No. 04 3421 3 a troubled child whose classroom conduct was disruptive at times. Smith would often seek out Doe on the playground and order him to Smith's office because he was a troublemaker.2 At trial. Smith invited Doe to have breakfast with him. Was the beginning of the molestation. Sexual grooming is
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1868.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee. Both sides agreed that the 1991 assault and battery conviction is a
</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/05a0903n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rojas Carillo was deported in November of 2002. Was discovered. Rojas Carillo was 19 years old when. He was arrested in Michigan in connection with a sexual encounter involving a 14 year old girl. He was charged with
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014551.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 923(e) is a sentencing enhancement statute for persons who have at least three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. Williams contends that two of his three prior drug convictions cannot serve as predicate offenses under § 924(e) because they were not
</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/55423764FC3E2C4B882570A60071834B/$file/0330355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The two proceedings were consolidated in the district court. 1119 (9th Cir. 2002) (findings of fact underlying the district court's ruling on a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error). Most of the narrative is based on the testimony of Portland Police Bureau Detective Sergeant Dirk Anderson. The remainder is based largely on the testimony of Sergeant John Eckhart and Officer Jeffrey Becker. Defendant appellee Jose Luis Ortiz Hernandez was arrested on November 12. Detective Anderson and his partner were eating lunch at a McDonald's restaurant in Portland when they saw the defendant and another man. Detective Anderson testified that he
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3480.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pierre was tried and convicted of the murders in Illinois state court in 1983. Concluding they were not procedurally defaulted. Arguing that his counsel was ineffective at the pleading stage and that his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily. Pierre will receive a new sentencing hearing.1 For the following reasons. Pierre was involved in a brutal murder for hire scheme in 1982. Just three weeks after he was paroled from prison. Barry Wilson was dating one Jackie Gibons. This is no longer a death penalty case because there is currently no such penalty awaiting the defendant. Wilson's attempt at murder was thwarted when he fell through a window at the Gibons' home and abruptly fled. 000 was discussed). Pierre to her father (Sybil Gibons was not at home). After Benjamin was dead. Jackie told the detective that her father was out and that she would have him return the call when he came home. Pierre was waiting in the hallway and he bludgeoned Sybil Gibons to death. Pierre was to accompany Wilson to dispose of the bodies in Arkansas (or California.
</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/2000/09/99-6083.htm">99-6083 -- HALE V. GIBSON -- 09/25/2000<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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/043557P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether Bell's prior Missouri conviction for second degree burglary of a commercial building was a
</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/may2001/00-14729.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. GAY (5/18/2001, NO. 00-14729)<BR></A><BR>
An investigation was conducted by several state and federal drug enforcement agencies. While no contraband was seized as a result of this investigation. Gay and the government stipulated that Gay was accountable for at least 20 grams but less than 40 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2386.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Was arrested in December 1996. The district court determined that Sacko was an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) because of three previous Rhode Island convictions for: (1) assault with a dangerous weapon. As it is described under Rhode Island General Laws. Sacko was sentenced. DISCUSSION The only issue before us is the propriety of the district court's sentencing of Sacko as an armed career criminal by virtue of his previous conviction for statutory rape under Rhode Island law. Which is sixteen years of age. This enhancement was only proper if Sacko's conviction was for a
</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/2587C1D5ACFFBD8288256F89005E28D3/$file/0410241.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which provides for such an increase when a defendant was previously deported after conviction of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1966.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the United States.</SPAN> <BR WP=
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/982468P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hart and Kearbey were arrested in Arizona while attempting to buy methamphetamine (Trial Tr. 4. Hogue was interested in Clayton. Hart knew Clayton was involved in trafficking methamphetamine (Trial Tr. 113). It is not clear. Was also present at the September 24 meeting. The meeting on September 24 was tape recorded by Kearbey (Trial Tr. 11). Have you been making any quantities or just small?
</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//july2002/01-14945.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ROOT (7/10/2002, NO. 01-14945)<BR></A><BR>
Root appeals his conviction and sentencing enhancement based on the fact that the
</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/6D28ED3494AE0CBE882570AB005C264F/$file/0370737.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. The Immigration Judge's (
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTExNDItY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1142-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
If the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and such visual depiction is of such conduct . . . shall be punished as provided under subsection (d). (2) The circumstance referred to in paragraph (1) is that 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 In April 2002. The detective was United States Secret Service agents later executed a search warrant at Rowe's home. Rowe was charged with and convicted by a jury of advertising to receive. (A) such person knows or has reason to know that such notice or advertisement will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed. Or (B) such notice or advertisement is transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(c) (2000). This language is now located in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d). Connected to the internet and entered a chat room titled
</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//apr2000/98-9085.man.html">HIGH V. HEAD (4/19/2000, NO. 98-9085)<BR></A><BR>
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case were briefly summarized in a previous opinion of this Court as follows:</P> <P> Jose High and his accomplices. Phillips was placed in the trunk of the car and Bullock in the back seat. High and his accomplices drove their captives to a remote site where they were to be eliminated. The 11 year old boy was taunted with threats of death as they rode in the back seat of the car. The victims were forced to lie face down in front of the car and were then shot. 1508 (11th Cir.1990) (footnote omitted).<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://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0904p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeals from the district court's declaration that section 9(c) and 9.1 of Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Act 8 of 1993 (
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/022898P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pelayo Jose Cuervo were convicted of numerous narcotics and firearms offenses. The firearms convictions that were unrelated to the conspiracy. Five kilograms or more of cocaine.3 The defendants were also charged with using firearms in furtherance of the conspiracy. The defendants were convicted of many of the charged counts.7 Norman was convicted of maintaining a continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. He was also convicted of nine substantive counts of distributing methamphetamine. Cuervo was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. Schoenauer was convicted of conspiracy to distribute between fifty and five hundred grams of methamphetamine and between one hundred grams and one thousand kilograms of marijuana. Schoenauer was then tried separately and found guilty of three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. 3 4 5 6 7 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
</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//aug2001/00-11491.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GRAY (8/7/2001, NO. 00-11491)<BR></A><BR>
Gray's principal argument is that the Government failed to prove that the conduct giving rise to the robbery charge had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce. Effect on interstate commerce.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTExNDItY3IgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-1142-cr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
If the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and such visual depiction is of such conduct . . . shall be punished as provided under subsection (d). (2) The circumstance referred to in paragraph (1) is that (A) such person knows or has reason to know that such notice or advertisement will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed. The detective was United States Secret Service agents later executed a search warrant at Rowe's home. Rowe was charged with and convicted by a jury of advertising to receive. I. Background (B) such notice or advertisement is transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(c) (2000). This language is now located in 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d). Connected to the internet and entered a chat room titled
</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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-7143a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Robert J. With him on the brief were Robert M. It places others in programs geared to youths who have committed less serious crimes or seem relatively likely to stay out of trouble. No minimum standards were required of District providers generally. Who did have experience with at risk youths but. Nor did these doors have locks. Doors leading into individual units did have locks. All of which was the case at Queenstown
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1044.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for respondent. He was convicted of possessing one half ounce of cocaine. Be deported if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens: . . . . (2) Criminal offenses. Mosquera was found deportable and. The BIA affirmed. is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after entry is deportable. . . . . Is deportable. 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii). Section 1158(d) was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Immigration Act of 1990. 3Asylum and withholding of deportation are distinct forms of relief for aliens facing persecution in the nation of origin. Is mandatory when deportation to a particular nation would threaten the alien's life or freedom on account of race. Withholding of deportation is
</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=06-6111.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is more <hr> than two and a half times the top end of the Sentencing Guidelines' recommended range. Allen the sentence he would have received had he been convicted by a jury of solicitation of murder or attempted sexual abuse and abduction of a child. The magnitude of the variance in this case and the way it was calculated were unreasonable. Whom we will call
</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.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a1994p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This opinion is prompted by an unusual concatenation of circumstances: (1) the United States Sentencing Commission adopted an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines rendering more flexible the circumstances under which a sentencing court can make a downward departure when a defendant convicted of certain kinds of offenses has been shown to possess significantly reduced mental capacity at the time of the offense. (3) because *Judge Mansmann sat on the original en banc panel but has been unable to participate in this decision due to illness. 2 the amendment is a
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510753.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: This case involves the question of whether possession of an unregistered firearm is a crime of violence for purposes of enhancing a criminal sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Defendant was convicted in 1995 of possession of an unregistered rifle with a seven inch barrel in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). The facts surrounding that conviction are set out in this court's opinion affirming Defendant's 1995 conviction. Defendant's possession was in the context of his part time employment at a consignment shop. One of which was seven inches.1 In 2004. Defendant was indicted for the instant offense of possessing firearms after having been convicted of a felony. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) provides a base offense level of 20 for firearms possession by a convicted felon if the prior felony was for a
</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/aug2001/00-11491.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GRAY (8/7/2001, NO. 00-11491)<BR></A><BR>
Gray's principal argument is that the Government failed to prove that the conduct giving rise to the robbery charge had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce. Effect on interstate commerce.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4282.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge Defendant Weldon Angelos was convicted of multiple drug. Angelos was subsequently arrested on November 15. A presentence investigation report (PSR) was prepared which recommended that Angelos. Including whether the mandatory minimum sentences required under 924(c) were consistent with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Advised law enforcement agents that Angelos was hiding drugs. Davenport advised that she had observed marijuana in the trunk of a black BMW automobile parked in the garage at the Fort Union house (the same BMW that Angelos was observed driving when he sold marijuana to the CI). Money were located in a safe in the basement of the Fort Union house. The proposed search warrant was subsequently signed by a federal judge. The odor seemed to be emanating from approximately eighteen large duffle bags that were in plain view. Were located in plain view in the garage of the Fort Union house and seized by the officers. The district court concluded that
</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/649B6CCF717207D988256DB200775935/$file/0250380.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No suspicion that an individual will commit or has committed another offense is required. Nor is there any requirement that the sample be taken in order to aid in the investigation of a particular crime. The DNA sample3 is turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The DNA evidence is then permanently available for future use in connection with the investigation and prosecution of crimes.4 Federal. Local law enforcement officials who conduct such investigations are able to compare CODIS informa2 Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a complex molecule which is found in the nuclei of human cells and carries a person's genetic information. A molecule of DNA is comprised of two nucleotide strands coiled around each other and connected by rungs. The strands and rungs link thousands of small components which exist in a number of biochemical variations and are arranged differently for every individual except for identical twins. At 27 (2000) [hereinafter DNA Act House Report]. 4 Although the DNA sample can identify the person from whom it was taken.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5491a.html">NAVEGAR, INC. V. US<BR></A><BR>
Gardiner argued the cause and was on the </P> <P>briefs for appellants.</P> <P> Mark B. With him on the brief </P> <P>were David W. Are licensed by the United States </P> <P>Bureau of Alcohol. Are unconstitutional Bills of </P> <P>Attainder.</P> <P> Both the appellants and the government filed cross motions </P> <P>for summary judgment on both of the constitutional chal </P> <P>lenges to the Act. Is entitled the
</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/051952np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will accordingly vacate the Board's decision and remand for reconsideration and a fuller explanation. Ghulam Mehboob is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the United States since 1997. He was convicted of misdemeanor indecent assault under Pennsylvania law. Which provides for the deportation of aliens who commit crimes
</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=04-7002.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Burton was convicted of using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. <hr> was introduced at trial. As she was driving her son to the bank. Burton was wearing a black shirt with a backwards number
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1188.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant James Mitchell was ordered detained pending sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3143(a)(2). Defendant was the co owner and operator of a private club in Boston named
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzNTZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1356_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendant testified that his real name is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-5491a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gardiner argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellants. With him on the brief were David W. Are licensed by the United States Bureau of Alcohol. Are unconstitutional Bills of Attainder. Is entitled the
</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/jan95/92-4698.html">UNITED STATES V. BROWN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. They argue that the Government's evidence of predisposition was insufficient as a matter of law. <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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4709_006.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jamell Newbern was convicted of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him as a career offender to 300 months' imprisonment after deciding that two of his prior convictions were for crimes of violence. Is not a crime of violence. Because it is. He was charged with one count of possession of crack with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At sentencing the district court concluded that Newbern was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The first is a 2000 conviction for reckless discharge of a firearm. Was incurred in 2001 as a result of Newbern's attempt to disarm a police officer. He argued nonetheless that reckless discharge of a firearm under Illinois law does not have
</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//jan95/92-4698.html">UNITED STATES V. BROWN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. They argue that the Government's evidence of predisposition was insufficient as a matter of law. <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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/885A1BE6E33F881D8825722D007DC5C3/$file/0470745.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the government has introduced sufficient evidence to carry its burden of proof that Sinotes Cruz is removable. He was granted lawful temporary resident status in May 1988. He was granted lawful permanent resident status in June 1990. Imposition of sentence was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/98-2886.man.html">BOTTOSON V. MOORE (11/29/2000, NO. 98-2886)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-6246.htm">97-6246 -- FRISTOE V. THOMPSON -- 04/28/1998<BR></A><BR>
2241.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3031_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reginald Townsend was convicted of bank robbery by force or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d) and a separate count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The sentence was enhanced by the district court's determination 2 No. 03 3031 that Townsend was a career offender under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. He should not have been classified as a career offender. Is dispositive of this issue. Wherein we determined that robbery under the Indiana statute at issue here
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2608843B69ADF29188256E29007159D7/$file/0330085.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the evidence obtained was the suppressible. The 911 call was entitled to greater reliability than a tip concerning general criminality because the police must be able to take seriously. The victim jeopardized any anonymity he might have enjoyed by placing his 911 call and risking criminal sanction under Oregon law for any false report. His 911 call was entitled to greater reliability because it evidenced first hand information from a victim informant. Domingis was not a native English speaker and spoke English with difficulty. Domingis explained that he did not know the return number because he was calling from someone else's cellular telephone. When the operator asked if there was another number where she could reach him. The information from this second 911 call was not communicated to Officer Kulp prior to the Terry stop. The effort was unsuccessful. No germane or exact match was reported. Factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514659.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Firearms (
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982886.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: Linroy Bottoson was convicted of murder in the state courts of Florida and received a death sentence. We granted a certificate of appealability to review: (1) whether Bottoson's right to a reliable sentencing hearing was violated by the trial judge's instruction that the jury could consider only statutory mitigating evidence. (2) whether Bottoson was denied the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.1 We now affirm. Post office was robbed. Money orders were taken. Was last seen leaving the post office on that day at around noon led by a tall African American man. She whispered to bystanders to call the police and to tell them that the man was stealing. Bottoson's wife attempted to cash one of the We granted a certificate of appealability both on whether Bottoson was denied effective assistance of counsel in the sentencing phase of the trial and on whether Bottoson's trial counsel was prevented from providing effective assistance of counsel because of conditions created by statute or state law.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR>
His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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/417F5368059FBBB6882571CC00704B31/$file/0530134.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tommy Hartz was convicted of conspiracy. (3) that the evidence offered at trial was insufficient to warrant the jury's verdict. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. There were then no customers in the store and only one employee. Was standing near the front of the store. Both 1 The store was divided into two parts: a showroom in the front. The two parts of the store were separated by a wall. HARTZ men were wearing hats and tee shirts. The hats were pulled down to the robbers' eyebrows. The tee shirts were pulled up to cover their mouths. Marciel would later testify that the robbers' clothing 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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/011177.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is:
</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/BDAEB8D91D7A343788256C15007CD73D/$file/0150263.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Agent Rodriguez's suspicions were aroused initially because residents of the local community generally were not out at that time of night. The area also was known for illegal alien crossings and smuggling activity. Were about to be moved north across the border. He noticed that the vehicle was not reg 11944 UNITED STATES v. The vehicle was slowing and speeding in a manner suggesting that the driver was unfamiliar with the area. Diaz admitted that he was an illegal alien and indicated that he was headed to the Makin' Bacon Ranch to look after the owner's pigs. Diaz was taken into custody for processing and voluntary return to Mexico. No inspection of the vehicle or other inquiry into possible drugor alien smuggling activity was conducted at that time. In which he noted that the Makin' Bacon Ranch is in an area known for smuggling activity. After he was indicted. Contending that the investigatory stop was illegal. Because he believed based on the totality of the circumstances that criminal activity was afoot.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep22/03-41260-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Primarily at issue is whether. Criminally negligent homicide under Texas law is equivalent to manslaughter and. The two offenses are not District Judge of the Northern District of Texas. The enhancement is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for I. He pleaded guilty in April 2002 to criminally negligent homicide and was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment. Dominguez (a Mexican citizen) was released in November 2002 and deported to Mexico in January 2003. He was found by Border Patrol Agents near Alamo. The district 8 U.S.C. §§ claiming that offense was not a crime of violence. court overruled the objection and sentenced Dominguez. Dominguez claims the
</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/00a0075p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful. The clearly established law of probable cause in this circuit was Criss v. Chief Schubert was not required to anticipate the majority's opinion here. Chief Schubert was entitled to rely on the plain holding of Criss. Could have read Criss to authorize the arrest. Of individuals who were in possession of particular goods that had been explicitly identified as stolen. Gardenhire's establishment was a thrift shop owned by Mary Della Sala. The bathroom and climate control panel for both stores were located in Ms. The two women were in the process of moving their merchandise. Television and VCR were among the items stolen. Who was also acting detective for the city. That some of these items were visible. There is no evidence in the record as to how the officers phrased this directive. Although Katherine Gardenhire is the sole owner of Uniquely Yours. The Gardenhires are an interracial couple: Katherine is Caucasian.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/421738E38434503488256FAC00016398/$file/0330387.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to determine whether a federal defendant's previous state law conviction is for a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-40870.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He appeals the district court's finding that his prior burglary conviction under Wisconsin law was a
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3144.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Mark D. With him on the brief were Peter D. The Bureau also was required to determine that there was reasonable cause to believe he had committed a crime. I Perez is a Correctional Counselor for the Bureau. Was not required also to determine. That there was reasonable cause to believe that Perez has committed a crime.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515466.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Pascual Ortiz Delgado appeals his 60 month sentence which was imposed after he pled guilty to one count of unlawful reentry of a deported alien. That is. He also argues that his sentence is unreasonable under United States v. Our
</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/152928C18E1033C588256D3B0073A4D7/$file/0116823.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Carey is substituted for his predecessor Anthony Newland as Warden of Solano State Prison. Is withdrawn. The Clerk is directed to file the attached opinion and the attached dissent. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED as moot. Ho asserts that he was deprived of his constitutional right to have a jury decide every element of the offense of second degree murder based on implied malice because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that the offense was a general intent crime. I Ho was convicted of second degree murder based on implied malice. CAREY corpus was denied by the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Before that night Ho and Chun were strangers. Were at the bar that night. Ho testified that he went to the car to get his gun because he was worried by the presence of Gee and Ma. There was a physical confrontation and Chun either attempted to hit. Witnesses testified that the shots were fired over a two to five second period from a relatively close range.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98464B12AFD83EA5882570350051B7F7/$file/0330387.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1) The sentence beginning
</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/1999/07/97-7086.htm">97-7086 -- FOSTER V. WARD -- 07/07/1999<BR></A><BR>
Charles Foster was tried in Oklahoma state court on an information alleging first degree murder as well as burglary and larceny. Wiley's last delivery was to the home of Charles and Eula May Foster. His body was discovered near an abandoned house in Muskogee ten days later. Foster was the State's key witness. Foster was hiding behind the front door with a baseball bat when Mr. He picked up the groceries she requested and then waited outside the store for awhile because it was raining. She told him she had borrowed the El Camino and they were going to visit her mother in Texas. Wiley's murder was especially heinous. The district court denied relief and was affirmed on appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. <em>Foster v. Which was also denied and then affirmed on appeal. <em>Foster v. We conclude a certificate of appealability is not a jurisdictional requirement in this appeal since Mr. Foster's petition was filed before April 24. If we are in
</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/032173p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Individuals on probation and supervised release who have committed certain qualifying offenses. While Paul Sczubelek was on supervised release. Sczubelek appealed on the grounds that the collection of a DNA sample is an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and also in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. We conclude first of all that this case is not moot. While Sczubelek was still serving his term of supervised release. The court issued a summons based on a violation of a condition of his release and the delay between the expiration of his term and the adjudication of the violation is
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/94-5244.opa.html">RAMSEY V. INS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ramsey v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM.<p> <p> Deryck Ramsey was ordered deported from the United States under sections 241(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Also because one of those crimes was an aggravated felony. Contending that the BIA erred in determining his conviction for attempted lewd assault under Florida Statutes
</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/04a0345p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This court is again faced with the same claims. Having considered the arguments of the parties regarding the two claims that are before us. The petition was amended on September 16. This court's review of the state court's decision is governed by the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Because factual determinations by state courts are entitled to a presumption of correctness. We will describe the factual circumstances surrounding the murder for which House was convicted by quoting from the Tennessee Supreme Court's opinion denying him relief in his direct appeal: The victim of the homicide was Mrs. Muncey was in her late twenties. Her children were about eight and ten years old at the time of her death on July 13. In March 1985 appellant Paul Gregory House was released from a prison in Utah and moved to the rural community in which the Muncey family lived. Which was located about two miles from the Muncey home. He was permitted to drive his mother's car from time to time.
</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/2001/09/00-5042.htm">00-5042 -- U.S. V. LOVE -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR>
We find that Love is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence based upon an alleged violation by the district court of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1) because Love has not demonstrated that his substantial rights were affected by the district court's statements. Is unconstitutional in light of <u>United States v. Who was actually a confidential informant working with the FBI. Malone was later arrested and eventually charged for his role in the crime spree. He was convicted of seven of the charges contained in the indictment (Docs. 44 and 65). Judge Kern refused to accept the plea agreement. (<u>Id.</u>) Judge Kern noted that Love was apparently the ringleader of the group. Not for all of the crimes that were committed. Is 46 years. To allow the government and Love a chance to negotiate another plea agreement. <p> Love's counsel on appeal states that Love 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://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5038.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Appellant Paul Hodges was indicted on August 2. Hodges was found guilty. Three years' (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The only issue presented to us is the correctness of the district court's denial of Hodges' motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm Hodges' conviction. At 4 (all references to
</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/07/06/063157P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stanko's primary argument is that the district court1 erred in concluding that The Honorable Joseph Bataillon. Were convicted after a jury trial of multiple counts of violating the FMIA. Stanko sought a declaratory judgment that he was not prohibited from possessing firearms under § 922(g)(1) because his conviction fell within the § 921(a)(20)(A) exclusion. The district court reasoned that: (1) the exclusion 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://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/94-5244.opa.html">RAMSEY V. INS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ramsey v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM.<p> <p> Deryck Ramsey was ordered deported from the United States under sections 241(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Also because one of those crimes was an aggravated felony. Contending that the BIA erred in determining his conviction for attempted lewd assault under Florida Statutes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6159.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Factual background The relevant underlying facts of this case were outlined in detail by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) in addressing Welch's direct appeal: On February 25. She was nude and had leather straps forming a ligature around her neck that also went down her back binding her hands. The Coopers' seven month old child was unharmed and in his crib in his room. The physical and circumstantial evidence at trial supported the State's theory that [Welch] secured entry into the Coopers' home by posing as a Norman Cablevision employee [Welch was fired from his employment with Norman Cablevision prior to the day of the murder. Retained possession of his employee uniform] as there were no signs of forced entry and the Coopers' dogs were found secured in the garage. Cooper kept them when repairpersons were working who needed access to the backyard. The medical examiner testified Cooper's anal swab was positive for sperm and that she had perianal peri postmortem tears which indicated the tears were sustained immediately after or during death.
</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/00BA46C38FFDFA0B8825734500597ECC/$file/0577103.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue before us is whether Lua has carried his burden to demonstrate eligibility for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). We consider whether Lua has demonstrated that his prior state conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11379(a) is not an
</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/05a0034n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
What started out as a seemingly modest dispute about Edryck Mooney's red baseball cap and the respect to which he (and his cap) were entitled ended with three consecutive life sentences for the young man. As chance would have it.
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzNDlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1349_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1994 shootings of Genovese Crime Family associates Sabatino Lombardi and Michael D'Urso by John Imbrieco and Anthony Bruno while the victims were playing cards at a Genovese Crime Family social club. Although Lombardi was fatally wounded. The remaining participants in the November 1994 shootings defendants appellants Mario Fortunato and Carmine Polito were subsequently tried for. We find that the following have merit and decline to reach the others: (1) The RICO conspiracy. The evidence was insufficient either to establish that Polito and Fortunato murdered Lombardi to
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611522.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Held that the Florida Supreme Court's decision on this issue was neither based on an unreasonable determination of the relevant facts nor contrary to or an unreasonable application of established federal law. That she was going to a party thrown by her friend Michelle Trammell at Trammell's trailer home just outside of Cleveland. She was accompanied not by her expected date who had car troubles but by a man she had met at the Rocky Top Market in Cleveland on her way to the party. Roark did not return and was never heard from again. The Mustang's license plate number was entered into the National Crime Information Center (
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/96-6202.man.html">UNITED STATES V. WILSON (8/12/1999, NO. 96-6202)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Christopher Wilson and Eric Herndon were convicted in separate trials of charges relating to the trafficking of crack cocaine.
</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/CA706AAB28F6B229882572050076D19A/$file/0530500.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Marion Hungerford was convicted of conspiracy. Neither was employed at the time.
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzNDkgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-1349%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1994 shootings of Genovese Crime Family associates Sabatino Lombardi and Michael D'Urso by John Imbrieco and Anthony Bruno while the victims were playing cards at a Genovese Crime Family social club. Although Lombardi was fatally wounded. The remaining participants in the November 1994 shootings defendants appellants Mario Fortunato and Carmine Polito were subsequently tried for. We find that the following have merit and decline to reach the others: (1) The RICO conspiracy. The evidence was insufficient either to establish that Polito and Fortunato murdered Lombardi to
</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/BAA25A9642E5CC2E88256CEF0078ADD5/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and replaced with the attached dissent. FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that UNITED STATES v. Bowdich received information from an unnamed source that a person known as
</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/96/02/952266P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hascall challenges the determination that conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine is a controlled substance offense under the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court ruled that conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine was a controlled substance offense under section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court also found that second degree burglary of a commercial building is a crime of violence as defined in section 4B1.2. The district court determined that Hascall was a career offender with an offense level of thirty seven and a criminal history category of VI. Provides: A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time of the instant offense. (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. Hascall argues that section 4B1.1 is inapplicable because conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine is not a controlled 2 substance offense. Holding that drug conspiracies are included in the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines.
</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/05a0440p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Applied and was rejected for the position of CMHA's Manager of Safety and Crime Prevention. White brought suit against CMHA alleging that she was not selected for the position because of her gender. (4) White failed to show that CMHA's proffered reason was pretextual. I. CMHA is a public housing authority created pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 3735.27 et seq. for the purpose of
</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/05/08/043730P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that Garcia Juarez's prior conviction for Lascivious Acts With a Child in violation of Iowa Code § 709.8 was an aggravated felony. Garcia Juarez was arrested and charged with Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree. Garcia Juarez eventually pleaded guilty to Lascivious Acts With a Child and his five year sentence was suspended. Discussion The sole issue on appeal is whether an Iowa conviction for Lascivious Acts With a Child can be properly characterized as an
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR>
His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-13624.opn.html">ITANI V. U.S. ATTORNEY GEN. (4/22/2002, NO. 01-13624)<BR></A><BR>
That he is entitled to a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</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/6A9F548C4220E69988256E8C005AC501/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The evidence of Allen's guilt for the crimes of conviction is overwhelming. Is that Allen's representation at the penalty phase of his trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Trial counsel admits he did nothing to prepare for the penalty phase until after the guilty verdicts were rendered. In what little time was available. There is a reasonable probability that the result of Allen's penalty phase would have been a sentence other than death.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-13624.opn.html">ITANI V. U.S. ATTORNEY GEN. (4/22/2002, NO. 01-13624)<BR></A><BR>
That he is entitled to a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</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/5A1535FB482F685E88256F930058B6D7/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 5831 insert the following language at the end of the first paragraph: We do not hold that humanizing. WOODFORD The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. The evidence of Allen's guilt for the crimes of conviction is overwhelming. Is that Allen's representation at the penalty phase of his trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Trial counsel admits he did nothing to prepare for the penalty phase until after the guilty verdicts were rendered. In what little time was available. There is a reasonable probability that the result of Allen's penalty phase would have been a sentence other than death.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/98-2886.man.html">BOTTOSON V. MOORE (11/29/2000, NO. 98-2886)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1808.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. The district court ruled that all rulings applied to all defendants and motions joining co defendants' motions were unnecessary. That he was paid $150 for each one eighth kilogram of cocaine packaged. Nez Matta testified that by the time the drug operation was located at the Coral Beach mesa in 1991. The brothers were selling Santiago Lugo's heroin. Vila and was responsible for getting heroin to the street dealers. Guez' ability to run the drug point was in question. The Rosarios were still allowed to sell packages of heroin and cocaine. An expert witness testified that the notebooks were consistent with those kept by an illicit drug organization. He opined that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/95-1548.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. DESANTIAGO-FLORES<BR></A><BR>
I. Defendant was indicted and tried on fourteen drug trafficking counts. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 511 months' imprisonment. Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to prove the bombings in counts 12 and 13 were committed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/391D9C193A5A61448825734500594DFC/$file/0515522.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Rodis is an attorney and an elected public official who sits on the Community College Board of the San Francisco City College. Because it was an old bill (a 1985 series). Because it appeared to have a texture different than bills with which the cashier was familiar. While the manager was examining the bill. After determining that the second bill was authentic. Which indicated it was authentic. The manager told Rodis he thought the bill might be fake and he was going to call the police so that they could settle the issue. Rodis was frustrated with the delay but remained in the store willingly until the officers arrived. The manager told Nguyen he had compared the bill to another and was uncertain about the bill's authenticity. They concluded it was probably counterfeit. Because they were not certain. No effort was made to investigate whether Rodis intended to use an ersatz bill or whether he believed the bill to be counterfeit. During which the agent confirmed that the bill was in fact genuine.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36FC6A32D9C7CE3088257060004C0562/$file/0330387.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2005 is recalled for the purpose of amending the opinion as follows: The amended opinion filed July 5. Is amended as follows: 1) Slip op. at 7793 (2005 WL 1560269. Beginning
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1953.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Horodyski</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. The jury indicated that the amount for each count was at least five. Determined that Goodine was responsible for 309.2 grams of crack. Sentenced him accordingly.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/96-6202.man.html">UNITED STATES V. WILSON (8/12/1999, NO. 96-6202)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Christopher Wilson and Eric Herndon were convicted in separate trials of charges relating to the trafficking of crack cocaine.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982886.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: Linroy Bottoson was convicted of murder in the state courts of Florida and received a death sentence. We granted a certificate of appealability to review: (1) whether Bottoson's right to a reliable sentencing hearing was violated by the trial judge's instruction that the jury could consider only statutory mitigating evidence. (2) whether Bottoson was denied the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.1 We now affirm. Post office was robbed. Money orders were taken. Was last seen leaving the post office on that day at around noon led by a tall We granted a certificate of appealability both on whether Bottoson was denied effective assistance of counsel in the sentencing phase of the trial and on whether Bottoson's trial counsel was prevented from providing effective assistance of counsel because of conditions created by statute or state law. We will consider these two issues together as part of Bottoson's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.
</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/052996np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</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/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 CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947057.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is whether proof of adequate notice is an element of the crime of possession or an affirmative defense. is an affirmative defense. That a restitution order under the Victim and Witness Protection Act can only be based upon harm resulting from conduct of which the defendant was convicted. I. Taneilian McArthur was involved in an argument with another man. He further claims that restitution was improper. Because it was founded on counts of which he was acquitted. When the instant case was briefed. Convictions under subsections (a) and (e) are limited by subsection (h). No person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility. Subsection (h) prohibits a conviction under subsection (a) unless conspicuous notice is posted to inform people of the prohibition. Subsection (h) is an element of the offense of possession
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D5AF4D44C5119A588256E5A00707A7F/$file/9771373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04D5DA34F0CD95C988256A11005C741A/$file/9756182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were convicted in Pennsylvania state court of operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit. Though they may have deviated from its terms. Fiore was unsuccessful in obtaining a writ of habeas corpus in state court. Was unsure whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Scarpone's appeal had announced a new rule of law in construing the statute. Because a basic element of the crime 3362 under Pennsylvania law was operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit. The Supreme Court's decision rests on the well established principle that the state must present sufficient evidence to prove each element of the crime with which a criminal defendant is charged. The requisite quantum of evidence for determining a challenge to a conviction on federal habeas corpus is specified in Jackson v. 324 (1979): A petitioner
</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/02/02-1301.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A defendant is deemed a career offender and faces a steeper sentence if he has two or more prior felony convictions for either controlled substance offenses or crimes of violence. Cole conceded that his state drug conviction qualified as a controlled substance offense but argued that 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://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/013730.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether a particular crime constitutes a crime of violence is a question of law and our review is plenary. Luster was convicted under 18 Pa. It is a third degree felony when: (i) the actor was under arrest for or detained on a charge of felony or following conviction of crime. None of which are contested on appeal. The District Court determined that his total offense level was 25. Or (2) is burglary of a dwelling. Other offenses are included as
</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=04-1185.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. At issue is whether his prior conviction in Kansas for aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer constitutes 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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0111p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
II was indicted on 22 counts of wire fraud. Arguing that (1) certain jury instructions were erroneous. (2) venue in the Western District of Michigan was improper with regard to five of the seven mail fraud charges. (3) the district court's restitution order was excessive. First Financial personnel did not disclose to the potential borrowers that Wood was in prison as a convicted felon. Interested callers were sent a package of documents compiled by Wood. Without liability for any diminution in price which may have occurred. The first loan transaction at issue was with Robert Graham. The sale of Graham's stock was supposed to be a shortagainst the box sale. Because the broker was unable to borrow 35. The short position was closed by selling the 35. Graham was not told that half of his collateral had been sold when he attempted to get his stock back in late 1994. Although the stock was thus disposed of by First Financial within three months of closing the loan transaction. He was later sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $570.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/68E062C54C99204A88256A070061DE3C/$file/9771373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI4ODQgdyBjb25jdXJyZW5jZS5wZGY=/03-2884%20w%20concurrence.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of alleging counsel that petitioner trial was denied effective and assistance when his attorney presented emphasized a demonstrably fallacious alibi defense. Denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney elicited and The emphasized an alibi that was clearly given for the wrong day. district court denied the petition on the ground that the state court's rejection of Henry's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The only evidence connecting Henry to the crime was his identification by Mitchell. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 As testified to at trial. Was arrested in an unrelated case and was placed in a lineup that was viewed by Mitchell. Henry was charged with one count each of first degree and second degree robbery. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/052165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. One forfeiture count and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Arguing that his motions to suppress evidence should have been granted. That there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for conspiracy and attempted obstruction of justice. Holding that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence found when the warrant was executed. The government's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel opinion vacated. He absconded after he was placed on work release. Received a report from Crime Stoppers that Tylan Lucas was staying at 2316 Ogden Street apartment 1 in North Omaha. That address was for a unit on the first floor of a house converted into apartments. They had learned that the tenant in apartment 1 was Theresa Scaife. On their arrival a man and woman were heard speaking inside. The police asked whether Lucas was in the apartment. She denied that he was. The officers told her they believed he was inside and wanted to look for him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024530.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Wiley Gene Wilson (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6F280DCE43B3946588256D3D00700591/$file/0250141.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294(1). Because Bonilla's sentence is error free. Bonilla argues that his prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter is not 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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/97-2669.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (9/30/1999, NO. 97-2669)<BR></A><BR>
The prosecution's case was also supported by evidence of telephone toll records indicating hundreds of calls between Diaz and Easterling during the time of the conspiracy. Further facts will be discussed as warranted by the issues addressed.</P> <P><EM>I. Jury Instructions</EM></P> <P> Diaz contends that because he was charged in the indictment with <EM>conspiracy to distribute cocaine. </EM> and the jury was instructed on <EM>conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. </EM> there was a constructive amendment to the indictment. <EM>See</EM> 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). Diaz argues that the instruction essentially broadened the possible basis for conviction beyond what is contained in the indictment. Is the reference in the record from time to time to a conspiracy
</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/2001/04/00-5079.htm">00-5079 -- U.S. V. DWYER -- 04/10/2001<BR></A><BR>
Which possession was in and affecting interstate commerce.
</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=06-5091.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will be published. Is attached. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> MURPHY. The offense is 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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2091.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Was robbed at gunpoint. Meserve was charged with the robbery and the associated firearms offenses.<A HREF=
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2294.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</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/1999/02/98-1231a.htm">98-1231A -- U.S. V. NICHOLS -- 02/26/1999<BR></A><BR>
On the brief for Amici Curiae. <p> <p> A corrected copy of page one of the opinion is attached for your convenience. <p> Sincerely. Nichols was the co conspirator of Timothy James McVeigh in the planning and subsequent bombing of the Alfred P. The pertinent details of the crime are fully set forth in our decision of Mr. Will not be repeated here. Nichols' trial is essential to the disposition of the issues he presents to us. He argues the district court erred before and during trial when it: (1) held intent to kill is not a required element of 18 U.S.C.
</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/1999/02/98-1231.htm">98-1231 -- U.S. V. NICHOLS -- 02/26/1999<BR></A><BR>
Nichols was the co conspirator of Timothy James McVeigh in the planning and subsequent bombing of the Alfred P. The pertinent details of the crime are fully set forth in our decision of Mr. Will not be repeated here. Nichols' trial is essential to the disposition of the issues he presents to us. He argues the district court erred before and during trial when it: (1) held intent to kill is not a required element of 18 U.S.C.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0560n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants were convicted by a jury of interfering with commerce by means of robbery. Herron was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 140 months. Sitting by designation. * Nos. 06 5319 and 06 5362 Willis was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1. BACKGROUND Willis was convicted of robbing seven women's clothing stores in or near Memphis. (J.A. 62 78) Herron was convicted for participating in the July 3. The facts underlying each robbery are set forth below. Willis entered the store a short time before closing time and
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1831.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief. Were on brief. Was charged with five counts of wire fraud. The charges are based on five wire transfers made in June 1988. The transfers were to pay liens and costs on properties owned by Reeder which had been posted as collateral for the purchase of two insurance companies. Reeder was convicted of all ten counts. An insurer that was licensed in Arizona and had its principal offices in California. Was a shell company. Diamond was to receive about $29.4 million in cash from LACOP. $18 million was to be delivered to Diamond at closing. The total was about $17 million. Those preexisting liens were significant because they meant that American's and Diamond's security interests would be subordinated to other mortgages on the properties. At the same time that these representations were being made. Reeder was repeatedly advised that Resolute had no means by which to pay the debt. The Rhode Island regulators were particularly concerned about the encumbrances on the property securing the promissory note to American.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/041820P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ken and Robert Fleck were each convicted following a jury trial of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Eldon Byers told police that he believed his propertyitems that had been stolen from him a year earlierwas at the Flecks' residence.1 When the officers arrived at the house. The officers explained they had a report Byers was living in the Flecks' house as a tenant at the time his property was stolen. It was assumed to be a burglary. Prompting their trip to the Fleck home. 21 that stolen property was in the home and asked if they might look around. The officers were invited in by Ken or Robert. Two other people were in the house. The officers looked only in the vicinity of the living room and dining room but stopped once they saw what could have been some of Byers' property in the dining room. Who were en route. Officer Kuiken and Detective Perna came across a bedroom that was padlocked. They returned to the living room and asked whose bedroom it was. Robert said that the bedroom was both his and Ken'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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063476P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Four persons were shot to death in their home at the Leslie Mark farm in Black Hawk County. All of whom were related to Mark. Were Leslie Mark. Mark was charged with four counts of first degree murder and tried in Iowa District Court for Woodbury County. He was convicted on all four counts and subsequently received a sentence of life imprisonment. The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that the jury could have determined that the following events occurred: On October 3. The motorcycle was dark brown in color. Where he was observed at another Stuckeys Pecan Shoppe. Ackley is only 36 miles from the Leslie Mark farm. Which is located just west of Cedar Falls. Jerry Mark left Ackley after getting gas and later was at the Leslie Mark farm in the early morning hours of November 1. The wounds were fatal to each. 3 [Mark] also made his way upstairs to Julie Mark's bedroom. Jerry Mark left the farm and was next observed in Williams. At 7:30 a.m. he was seen in Stuart. Holding that
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1514.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for respondent. After Acquiles Leonidas Cabral was CYR. He was ordered deported for committing 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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054102p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charles Navarro was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment on August 19. We will affirm the District Court's sentence. Navarro was wanted on state charges of aggravated assault. Managed to escape capture.2 Section 2K2.1(b)(5) was renumbered in November 2006. Is now section 2K2.1(b)(6). Because this case is based on the Guidelines as they existed before November 2006. Navarro waited until the officer's vehicle was stopped. This latter incident was the basis of the aggravated assault charge that predicated the most recent traffic pursuit. 3 2 1 Navarro left behind some incriminating evidence. A local resident provided the police with a jacket that was found near the scene of the crash. Navarro was subsequently arrested and. Navarro was initially charged by state authorities with two counts of possession of a controlled substance. These charges were subsequently dismissed in favor of federal prosecution. He was not. Therefore there was no plea agreement. Was simple possession of cocaine and marijuana. Is not a felony.
</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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/009005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter
</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/2002/06/00-6284.htm">00-6284 -- U.S. V. TYLER -- 06/21/2002<BR></A><BR>
All of the remaining issues raised by Tyler and Collins are without merit. <p> <em>I. <u>Bill of Particulars</u></em> <p> Tyler challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a bill of particulars and argues that his trial was rendered fundamentally unfair when the Government changed its theory of the case during trial. Tyler contends that he was unable to defend himself. Will not disturb it
</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/1999/12/98-3343.htm">98-3343 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 12/22/1999<BR></A><BR>
Nos. <a name=
</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/200013083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The centerpiece of the government's case in chief was its evidence implicating the remaining eleven defendants in the conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine alleged in Count 2. The overall thrust of the hundreds of hours of witness testimony was that Williams and Casado. Their mother Susan Hall Gibson 2 Lenard Brown was Leonard Brown's twin brother. We refer to all defendants by their last names except for the Brown twins and Malcolm and Bernard Shaw. 4 were all friends of Williams from the Miami neighborhoods of Carol City. Baptiste was Casado's close friend and business partner. Charlton Darces was a Port of Miami longshoreman who. The government's case was also replete with evidence. The overt acts cited are as follows: 1. To an individual who was later arrested in St. A portion of which was later seized by authorities. Approximately two and one half kilograms of crack which remained from this crack were seized by law enforcement authorities in West Palm Beach. A portion of which was later seized by law enforcement authorities on March 6.
</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//aug97/94-8735.man.html">CARGILL V. TURPIN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cargill v. (1997) (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2670A7DBB41AE77988256D9E007B699B/$file/0110112.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Tony Si was convicted and sentenced for (1) conspiracy to commit a robbery that affects interstate commerce in violation of the Hobbs Act. Si alleges that he was denied a fair trial because (1) a Chinese translator was not appointed for him. (2) there was a Brady violation that resulted from the district court's reversal of the magistrate judge's discovery order requiring the gov 13554 UNITED STATES v. (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. (4) he was entrapped as a matter of law. We have jurisdiction and we affirm the district court's judgment and sentence. Hsiung was working as an FBI informant at that time. Si told Hsiung that he had heard that Hsiung was involved in the computer industry. Nguyen's undercover role was to play the part of a driver of a small truck who picks up computer parts to deliver to bigger trucks. SI 13555 in the robbery was to provide the location of the larger truck so that it could be robbed. Si's defense is that he never intended to rob the truck.
</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/044261p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/26853EAE9FDD65A488256E5A00707A9A/$file/9756182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were convicted in Pennsylvania state court of operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit. Though they may have deviated from its terms. Fiore was unsuccessful in obtaining a writ of habeas corpus in state court. Was unsure whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Scarpone's appeal had announced a new rule of law in construing the statute. Because a basic element of the crime 3362 under Pennsylvania law was operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit. The Supreme Court's decision rests on the well established principle that the state must present sufficient evidence to prove each element of the crime with which a criminal defendant is charged. The requisite quantum of evidence for determining a challenge to a conviction on federal habeas corpus is specified in Jackson v. 324 (1979): A petitioner
</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/sept99/97-2669.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (9/30/1999, NO. 97-2669)<BR></A><BR>
The prosecution's case was also supported by evidence of telephone toll records indicating hundreds of calls between Diaz and Easterling during the time of the conspiracy. Further facts will be discussed as warranted by the issues addressed.</P> <P><EM>I. Jury Instructions</EM></P> <P> Diaz contends that because he was charged in the indictment with <EM>conspiracy to distribute cocaine. </EM> and the jury was instructed on <EM>conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. </EM> there was a constructive amendment to the indictment. <EM>See</EM> 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). Diaz argues that the instruction essentially broadened the possible basis for conviction beyond what is contained in the indictment. Is the reference in the record from time to time to a conspiracy
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974866.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is a case of first impression in this circuit. I. This is a direct appeal by the defendant of a conviction and sentence following a trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The defendant was named in a twocount indictment. He was acquitted of the kidnaping charge but found guilty of interstate domestic violence. Claiming that his conviction must be reversed because the evidence was undisputed that he did not commit any act of violence against his wife during the course of a trip from Maryland to North Carolina and because. He also claims that the court erred when it refused his request that it instruct the jury that consent of the victim was a defense to section 2261(a)(2). 2 II. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Were married approximately one month after meeting in 1996. While she was packing. While they were talking. Called her sister to say that she was on her way back to her sister's home. These were references to another sister and Denise Helem's daughter.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1657.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence entered against defendant Craig Sawyer for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He asserts that the warrant to search his home was not supported by probable cause and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule cannot properly be applied here. Your affiant then back tracked these same tracks South of the residence to the tarred portion of the road at which time each neighboring driveway was checked as the interview of the neighbors was done. [paragraph 5] Approximately one hundred yards from the start of the paved road and approximately one third of a mile South of the Sands residence. Is the driveway of the Craig Sawyer residence. Your affiant was able to see the track to within approximately ten yards of the Sawyer residence and was able to see it no further.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B6CAD099302DDBC88256E7F00725C39/$file/0310055.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2004 and reported at 357 F.3d 956 is amended as follows: on Slip Opinion page 1612. The first sentence is amended to read: This case requires us to decide whether a conviction under California Vehicle Code section 2800.2. Is a crime of violence as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).1 All subsequent footnotes are renumbered accordingly. Is a crime of violence as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).1 We hold that it is and therefore qualifies as an aggravated felony California Vehicle Code section 8200.2 was amended in 1996. With which we are not concerned in this opinion. 1 UNITED STATES v. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Appellant Francisco Campos Fuerte (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/03-41031-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Primarily at issue is whether. His prior Pennsylvania conviction for the misdemeanor offense of terroristic threats is a requisite
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0350p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gardiner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which he was convicted. Alleges that there was prosecutorial misconduct that impacted his substantial rights. Lupo appeals claiming that: (1) he was sentenced using the wrong version of the Sentencing Guidelines. (2) his sentence is unreasonable under United States v. (3) he is entitled to a new trial 1 Nos. 05 1247/1248 United States v. Page 2 where there were improper references made during his trial to his alleged mafia connections. (4) he is entitled to a new trial where the government failed to disclose that one of its witnesses had failed a polygraph test. We have reviewed all of Defendants' various claims. The Indictments A thirty five count Indictment was handed down in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June 25. Gardiner was charged in Count 1. Gardiner and Hudson were also charged in Count 3 with conspiracy to affect commerce under color of official rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (bribery)1.
</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/053572np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2006) This case was submitted to the panel of Judges Ambro. It is filed by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Was convicted of an aggravated felony conspiracy to purchase drugs. He was charged with removal and appeared before an immigration judge. Zhao claims that he is eligible for asylum or cancellation of removal. That he was not convicted of 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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-5118.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MASON<BR></A><BR>
Defendant was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm after a prior felony conviction. That two elements of the offense with which he was charged had been proved. Defendant Robert Mason was charged in a one count indictment with possession of a firearm after prior conviction of a felony. Mason stipulated that he had previously been convicted of a felony and that the firearm he was charged with possessing had been transported in interstate commerce. The government was required to prove: (1) the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. (3) the possession was in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. The court instructed the jury as follows: The parties stipulate that the first and third elements have been met. That is. That the defendant has previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and that the possession of the firearm was in or affecting commerce. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and Mason was sentenced to seventy eight months imprisonment.
</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/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3027_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fraud is a necessary component of the scheme. It will not reimburse the holder. Because crimes of deceit are the classic exemplars of moral turpitude. The immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) provides: Any alien who (I) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years . . . after the date of admission. (II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed. Is deportable. Subsection (ii) adds: Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. Regardless of whether confined therefor and regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial. Is deportable. Logically the first question is whether the crime of which he has been convicted is one of
</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.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-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2AEAF04E8432467C88256D88007913CA/$file/0216744.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael Evanchyk was tried in Arizona state court. He was acquitted by a jury of first degree murder and of burglary. Was convicted of second degree murder and of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Evanchyk could have been convicted for. Which is not a crime under Arizona law. Contending that there was no instructional error and that any error was harm 11830 EVANCHYK v. Was erroneous on double jeopardy or collateral estoppel grounds. Intent to kill is an essential element of the offense of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The circumstances do not permit us to find that the error in this case was harmless. So habeas relief is appropriate. Because there was substantial evidence to support the State's allegation of an agreement to kill. It is appropriate to permit the State to re try Evanchyk on the conspiracy charge. I. BACKGROUND The district court adopted the description of the crime set forth in the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision affirming Evanchyk's conviction on direct appeal: [Evanchyk] was assaulted by another resident of his apartment complex.
</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/19972669.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The prosecution's case was also supported by evidence of telephone toll records indicating hundreds of calls between Diaz and Easterling during the time of the conspiracy. Further facts will be discussed as warranted by the issues addressed. A. Trial Issues Jury Instructions Diaz contends that because he was charged in the indictment with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The jury was instructed on conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. There was a constructive amendment to the indictment. Diaz argues that the instruction essentially broadened the possible basis for conviction beyond what is contained in the indictment. Is the reference in the record from time to time to a conspiracy
</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/19972669.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The prosecution's case was also supported by evidence of telephone toll records indicating hundreds of calls between Diaz and Easterling during the time of the conspiracy. Further facts will be discussed as warranted by the issues addressed. Jury Instructions 2 Diaz contends that because he was charged in the indictment with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The jury was instructed on conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. There was a constructive amendment to the indictment. Diaz argues that the instruction essentially broadened the possible basis for conviction beyond what is contained in the indictment. Is the reference in the record from time to time to a conspiracy
</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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/014086p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm his robbery conviction and his convictions for the federal crimes of interference with commerce by robbery and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. We will reverse his conviction for possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number and remand for a new trial. We will also reverse his conviction for possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school but remand with a direction to enter a judgment of acquittal on that charge. Was robbed. Were in the bar at the time. She said she was scared and threw $15 at the masked robbers. Charles testified that the two men wore white T shirts and were not wearing masks when he saw them enter the bar.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3669.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. is a former Milwaukee police officer who was arrested for physically abusing a child. Though he was not prosecuted. Anderer was terminated following an internal affairs investigation into this incident. Finding that probable cause existed at the time Anderer was arrested and that the 2 No. 02 3669 speech at issue was not protected by the First Amendment. After the juveniles were handcuffed. While they were being escorted to the patrol cars. One 12 year old boy (whom we will call JR) started shouting that one of the officers who was escorting him to the car. Was touching him on the buttocks and trying to rape him. Three of the juveniles were then transported to the police station by Officer Cook and his partner Officer Jeffrey Logan. JR was placed in a patrol car and driven to the station by Anderer. Several officers noticed that JR was bleeding from the nose and mouth and had blood on his clothing. Mary Hoerig and Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/697201FC39B8A407882571DA0078FB4B/$file/0516455.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that California inmates continue to have a liberty interest in parole after In re Dannenberg. The state court decisions upholding Sass' parole denials were not contrary to. Sass was convicted of second degree murder. He was sentenced to fifteen years to life with the possibility of parole. The Board cited 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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims
</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/mar97/96-5091.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. BENNETT<BR></A><BR>
Bennett appeals the district court's determination that he 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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2020.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for the United States. Burke & McMenimen was on brief for appellee. 17 or 18 is 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://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-3060a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0262p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminals Act (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98EB2B607B8CA618882570FF0050D9C2/$file/0410597.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We consider whether possession of an assault weapon in violation of California Penal Code section 12280(b) is 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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116485op3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We substitute this opinion for the previous opinions which we have already withdrawn. B ecause w e conclu de the circ umstan ces are ins ufficient to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a) (1994) provides: The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them: . . . (6) All moneys. Securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter [dealing with control of drugs]. (emphasis added) Because the forfeiture complaint was filed on 30 April 1999. She is a shareh older an d presid ent of M ike's Imp ort & E xport U .S.A. She says that she was in New York City regarding a court ca se from a car accid ent she h ad appr oximate ly ten years prior. She says that she was contacted by her brother and told to pick up some money for their b usiness. One package was wrapped in black plastic and In addition. Stanford also argues that the stop conducted at the Miami Airport was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that. The fruits of the seizure should have been suppressed at the forfeiture hearing.
</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/aug97/94-8735.man.html">CARGILL V. TURPIN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cargill v. (1997) (
</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/041721np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. (2) physical evidence and statements to police supporting that conviction should have been suppressed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. Patrick was then taken to the Wilkes Barre police station. Patrick was also shown his Miranda rights in writing. That he was willing to answer questions. Was now dealing crack obtained from a supplier in New York. When Patrick was asked for consent to search his home. Including the location where the controlled purchases were made. That the meetings between Patrick and unknown persons were consistent with drug transactions. Within a few feet of the weapons and the cash under the mattress were approximately forty grams of crack cocaine in a man's sneaker. Patrick said again that he understood them and was willing to be questioned. He refused to identify who they were. We need not discuss this offense further because we find that the evidence supports a conviction under the same Section for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. 4 1 In reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt.
</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/2003/06/01-1557.htm">01-1557 -- U.S. V. RADCLIFF -- 06/16/2003<BR></A><BR>
Was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and of carrying a firearm during and in relation to that conspiracy. He was sentenced to 288 months of imprisonment. <p> Defendant now challenges three aspects of the proceedings before the district court. He contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his firearm conviction. Defendant contends that wiretap evidence used against him at trial should have been suppressed because of a defect in the order authorizing the wiretap. The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Defendant carried a firearm during and in relation to the methamphetamine conspiracy. The district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the wiretap evidence because the omission in the wiretap order was merely a technical defect. <p> We do not have jurisdiction to review a district court's denial of a downward departure at sentencing. Defendant was indicted along with eighteen others for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C.
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTE1NDNfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-1543_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the statement by a defendant in response to a police question before he was read his Miranda rights that he had a gun in his jacket falls within the public safety exception to the Miranda warning requirements. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) but that the error was harmless in this case. Appellants were 2 convicted after a jury trial of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) but that the error was harmless in this case. The gun and narcotics that were seized at that time as a result of the statements. The team was aware of DeJesus's criminal record. DeJesus was already lying face down on the floor when Sergeant Juan Gonzalez. As Gonzalez was standing over and attempting to handcuff him.
</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=05-8003.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Jackson was indicted on the single count in September 2003. When he was arrested on January 27. He argues that the district court erred when it sentenced him as an armed career criminal because his 1998 conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm was not defined as 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://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004687.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Myers was charged in a five count federal indictment with various drug and weapons offenses. Spencer Myers was at his mother's home in Huntington. Sensing he was in danger. Myers was arrested a few miles from his mother's home. Myers was then charged by the state with murder. Myers was later charged in a five count fed |
