Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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

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

Your query criminal and procedure returned 10804 results.

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

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-10.gif" ALT="1000"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS </A> 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-9.gif" ALT="968"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213654.opn2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Anton Pusztai and Anita Yates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="924"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9D33A3EF8BC665C88256D95005BFD72/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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="883"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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="868"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/97-4578.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT (3/16/2001, NO. 97-4578) </A> The subsequent proceeding would be needless because the order of forfeiture upon which the Government relies is invalid. We affirm the district court's denial of the Government's motion to force the Gilberts to file third party petitions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963( </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="868"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/97-4578.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT (3/16/2001, NO. 97-4578) </A> The subsequent proceeding would be needless because the order of forfeiture upon which the Government relies is invalid. We affirm the district court's denial of the Government's motion to force the Gilberts to file third party petitions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963( </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="866"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/993234.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Does the District Court have mandamus jurisdiction over the Territorial Court? The jurisprudence is clear that jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus lies in cases where potential jurisdiction exists. We further conclude that the ROA's command that the relationship between the District Court and local courts mirror the one between state and federal courts is not a bar to the District Court's exercise of mandamus power because the District Court retains appellate jurisdiction over the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands. Which precludes dismissal of criminal cases absent a judicial finding that the dismissal is in good faith. Because this judgment is reserved to prosecutors under the old common law power of nolle prosequi. Rule 128(b) is a substantive rule of law rather than a procedural rule that the local court is authorized to promulgate under the ROA. The local rules of the Territorial Court apply the Federal Rules in circumstances in which there are no valid rules to the contrary. The argument that this rule also has a substantive component is not without force. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117133ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. The United States Supreme Court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="851"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/98-4230.ma2.html">RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230) </A> Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976 This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="851"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/98-4230.ma2.html">RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230) </A> Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976 This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="849"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/410347FABA0293F388257251006DF1D1/$file/0510067.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="841"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/011004p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The issue presented in this appeal is whether the rule of law announced by the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. The courts of appeals that have considered the issue have uniformly held that Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. I. BACKGROUND Appellant Andre Swinton was charged with various drug offenses in a six count superseding indictment returned in 1994. He was found guilty after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base (crack). Swinton claimed that his rights to due process and a jury trial were violated because the jury was instructed that the 4 Government need not prove the quantity and identity of the drugs involved in his case. This claim was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. Contending that there was no merit to Swinton's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Accordingly the Supplemental Motion was time barred under the statute of limitations provision of § 2255. It argued that even if Apprendi were applicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1886E09C54A4E27388256FB0005803BA/$file/0215866.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Whose interview with a detective was admitted as key evidence. The Court definitively held that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/057FBA801ED3299C8825701300165871/$file/0215866.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: At 399 F.3d 1022. Substitute the following paragraph: The final question is whether admission of Autumn's statement </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAyMDEtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0201-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That his right to a fair trial was compromised by a procedure that allowed the government to make summation comments at the conclusion of each witness's testimony. vacate the conviction. Is dyed red and may not be used in on road vehicles. Low sulfur diesel fuel is clear and may be used in on road vehicles. There is no difference in the composition of the two types of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fuel. Clear low sulfur diesel fuel is subject to a federal excise tax. While the high sulfur product is not. Twenty Four Hour prepaid the federal excise tax on some of the low sulfur diesel when purchased and was entitled to a refund of prepaid taxes for low sulfur diesel fuel later sold to nontaxable entities. One of Twenty Four Hour's customers was the Long Island Railroad ( </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/C8F2AEBE9764448588256E300069B8B0/$file/0170724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We write en banc to clarify that the acceptance of a criminal defendant's guilty plea is a judicial act distinct from the acceptance of the plea agreement itself. The conditions under which the plea may be withdrawn are governed exclusively by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 Where a district court accepts a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court's choice to do so here was error. As is commonly the case. Although most changes were intended to be </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTEwMTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-1010_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Both defendants were convicted. No reason for holding the proceedings in the robing room is apparent in the record of either case. Because the public and press have a qualified First Amendment right of access to plea and sentencing proceedings. Goiry's case is remanded for resentencing. Munoz's plea is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. Oral arguments were heard in the appeals of the Munoz and Goiry cases by two panels of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 this court on March 9. Respectively. 1 We have consolidated these cases for purposes of disposition on appeal because they raise a similar issue. Munoz entered her plea in the robing room and Goiry was sentenced in the robing room. The public and press have a qualified First Amendment right of access to plea and sentencing proceedings. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1776.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> With whom Sulloway & Hollis was on brief for appellants U.S. Sullivan and Rice Dolan & Kershaw were on brief for appellants Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Were on brief for appellees. Chief Judge is whether a United States District Court has the power to adopt a local rule that requires federal prosecutors to obtain judicial approval before they serve a subpoena on an attorney to compel evidence concerning a client. Does not have the power to do so with respect to grand jury subpoenas. It is necessary briefly to review some of the recent history leading to this lawsuit. 21 U.S.C. 848 (1988) (evidence that legal representation was provided by a benefactor. The instances of federal prosecutors subpoenaing attorneys to compel evidence regarding theirclients have. The Assistant Attorney General must find that the information is necessary for an investigation or prosecution. That the subpoena is narrowly drawn. Id. 3 In the first year that the Department of Justice Guidelines were in effect. Of which 278 subpoenas were for grand jury proceedings and 85 for trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="805"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4316.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Have been audited by the Internal Revenue Service virtually. Every year since Richard Nixon was President. Kanter was a wellknown and accomplished tax and estate lawyer. Among Kanter's clients was the Pritzker family of Hyatt Corporation fame. Kanter was also an accomplished businessman. Was an expert on the subject of trusts and estate planning. His estate was subsequently substituted as the principal party to this litigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="805"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011739.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Panarella does not dispute that the facts alleged in the superseding information are sufficient to charge him with being an accessory after the fact to Loeper's scheme to deprive the public of his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="788"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/996823.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> A federal statute that permits courts to award attorney's fees and costs to individuals who were subjected to a vexatious prosecution. I. A criminal investigation was launched in October 1993 against Richard Holland. The district court ruled on the motion for reconsideration and concluded that Hyde Amendment proceedings are civil rather than criminal. Although the United States did not designate under what rule it was filing its motion for reconsideration. In any criminal case (other than a case in which the defendant is represented by assigned counsel paid for by the public) pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 26. Where the court finds that the position of the United States was vexatious. That part is not relevant to this appeal. 3 of attorney's fees and costs was made under the wrong section of 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and that attorney's fees and costs should not have been awarded because the government's prosecution was not vexatious within the meaning of the Hyde Amendment. The issue in this case is simply whether Hyde Amendment proceedings are civil or criminal in nature. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="785"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974750.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That the provision is unconstitutional. The district court erred in suppressing Dickerson's voluntary confession on the grounds that it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda. Dickerson was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 371 (West Supp. 1998). Although the district court specifically found that Dickerson's confession was voluntary for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. It nevertheless suppressed the confession because it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda.1 In ruling on the admissibility of Dickerson's confession. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="778"></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) </A> We hold that McCoy's </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="778"></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) </A> We hold that McCoy's </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="778"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016434.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9236CC5DE216457088256C09005A60DC/$file/0016752.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We hold that Procedure 770 is an exaggerated. Unreasonable response to prison officials' legitimate concerns about the safety of prison staff and thereby unconstitutionally restricts the public's First Amendment right to view executions from the moment the condemned is escorted into the execution chamber. It is helpful to understand the execution process. Approximately 25 minutes before the execution is scheduled to take place. Though his legs are free. The condemned is handcuffed and his wrists are shackled to his waist. The condemned is laid on a gurney. To which he is secured with six straps. Two of the four guards leave and two medical technicians enter to insert two intravenous lines (one is redundant. Once the intravenous lines are inserted. Representatives of the public and the press have been allowed to witness California's entire execution process from start to finish. Strap him into the chair and administer the lethal gas until he was declared dead. Witnesses were not permitted to watch Bonin as the guards brought him into the chamber. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="773"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2F40907BCCED8078825710700038BAE/$file/0416621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We conclude that the only appropriate remedy is to enjoin enforcement of the Act and we now affirm the district court's grant of a permanent injunction. Background Post First Trimester Abortion Methods The vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed during the first trimester.1 Approximately ten percent The first trimester lasts until the thirteenth or fourteenth week of pregnancy. GONZALES of abortions are performed during the second trimester. Only about one percent are performed after the twentieth week from the woman's last menstrual period ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="773"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BC847243323E2F808825725D005D2DC5/$file/0610473.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Robert Calloway for racketeering and various predicate crimes is pending trial. Defendants are alleged to be members of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="771"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623) </A> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="771"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623) </A> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0038p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Simmons claims that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. That he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the plea stage. That the state should have provided him appointed counsel to represent him in the appellate process under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Halbert v. Where he was residing at the time. Appears to have been overindulging with some friends at the time. Who was staying in Simmons's room at the hotel. The parties dispute what Simmons's intention was in setting the shirt on fire he characterizes it as a practical joke. Blystra sought to have criminal charges brought against Simmons. Simmons was arrested and charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. In an attempt to have Simmons </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013347.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212054ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Habeas petitioners and § 2255 movants have sought to circumvent the AEDPA's restrictions on second round collateral attacks in federal courts. One of the most popular vehicles used in the attempted end runs is a Fed. We entered an order granting hearing or rehearing en banc in three cases in order to answer some common questions that have arisen about the use of Rule 60(b) motions to obtain relief from judgments that denied § 2254 relief (in two of the cases before us). Which was after this case was submitted for decision. That is. 4) was it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the Rule 60(b) motion in his case? In the sequence in which the panel decisions or orders were issued in them. A. A decade ago at a retrial Stephen Mobley was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of a Domino's Pizza employee during an armed robbery. Who had been the district attorney when the prosecution began but no longer was. He told the jury that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-13347.OP2.html">UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347) </A> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013447.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-13347.OP2.html">UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347) </A> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/002358.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This civil rights action mounts a Fourth Amendment challenge to a practice of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office which the parties have labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2194.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Stopped Gustavo Olivares Rangel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0162p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Philip Ray Workman is scheduled to be executed by the State of Tennessee on May 9. Even though the components of the procedure that Workman challenges today have been in existence in the main since 1998. Workman's prospects for success on the merits also are dim. Several state and federal courts have upheld this same three drug protocol (including the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2005). Workman acknowledges that the new procedure is only slightly different from the old procedure. The State has done in reviewing and revising the procedure shows that it is trying to prevent Workman from suffering any pain during his execution. Not that it is trying or willing to allow a procedure that imposes unnecessary and wanton pain. Oliver stopped the defendant as he was exiting. Which also was unsuccessful. A brief review of the history of Tennessee's execution procedures is in order. Quickly anesthetizes the inmate and is sufficient to cause death in the absence of the two additional chemicals in the protocol. Pancuronium bromide is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/591DE0BDB1755ABE88256ED200748A3D/$file/0235700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Presiding *Lawrence Wasden is substituted for his predecessor. We conclude that the statute's definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1193.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellants were members of a federal grand jury empaneled in 1989 to investigate possible environmental crimes at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant (Rocky Flats) in Colorado. They were discharged on March 24. They contend that some of this material is not governed by Rule 6(e). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. On appeal the government contends that Appellants' notices of appeal were untimely because they did not meet the 10 day deadline for appeals in criminal cases. I. BACKGROUND Rocky Flats is owned by the United States. It produced components for nuclear weapons until it was shut down more than 10 years ago. Through 1989 it was operated by Rockwell. Two days after the grand jury was formally discharged. The plea agreement was accepted by the district court on June 1. The request for the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961371.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: The main question in this case is whether a North Carolina tax on illegal drugs is in reality a criminal penalty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="749"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="749"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/006281.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court dismissed Sanders' motion as untimely under § 2255 because it was filed more than one year after Sanders' conviction became final. Sanders was named in a onecount criminal information. Sanders was sentenced to 328 months imprisonment and a five year term of supervised release. Sanders claimed that his attorney was ineffective for failing to present this Fifth Amendment argument to the court. The court ruled that Sanders' petition was therefore untimely under § 2255's one year statute of limitations. There was no time limitation on a federal prisoner's ability to collaterally attack his conviction in a § 2255 motion. . . . [or] (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court. IV 1998).1 Sanders contends that his motion was timely under both subsections (1) and (3). Sanders first contends his habeas petition was timely under § 2255 subsection (1). Then his motion is untimely. Was the date on which the district court entered its judgment from which Sanders chose not to appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/83417EB0FDBB90EF8825729100090500/$file/0610234.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have long assumed that FRAP 4 is. We conclude that Rule 4(b) is not jurisdictional. Is forfeited if not invoked. Courts have generally not distinguished between the concepts of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3669.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214941.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Turner Murders his Wife and Joyce Brown The facts concerning the two murders largely are undisputed. Turner repeatedly arrived at Joyce's apartment asking to speak to his estranged Irene Hall also went by the nickname </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051715p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Before us now is Banks's appeal from his conviction and sentence. Banks was sentenced after the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision in United States v. Two are novel to 2 this Court. Banks raises the question whether the District Court was obligated to provide him with advance notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) of its intent. We conclude the District Court had statutory authority to issue the in personam forfeiture judgment and was not obligated to provide advance notice of its intent to vary from Banks's Guidelines sentencing range. We will affirm Banks's convictions and sentence in their entirety. Amazon.com informed him that only full retail versions of software products could be sold through his account and that sales of copied or duplicated software were prohibited. These buyers suspected that the software they purchased from Banks was illegally copied because the compact discs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5996D5D9D6A3CCA78825729700822D31/$file/0610473o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> FORT The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Are filed concurrently herewith. The sole question presented here was whether inculpatory (non Brady). Non public investigative reports made by local police and then turned over to federal prosecutors for use in a federal prosecution concerning the same acts of the same persons are or are not exempted from disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(2). The majority held that such materials are exempted from disclosure by Rule 16(a)(2). That issue was not ripe for review in this interlocutory appeal because the deadline set for production of Brady materials in advance of trial had not yet been reached. Judge Wardlaw concentrates most of her attention on a prediction that Fort will vastly expand the kinds of materials that the federal government will have to produce during discovery. </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/05a0411p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> If the 26(B) procedure is part of the initial direct appeal of right. Assistance of counsel is constitutionally required at both stages. 372 U.S. 353 (1963) (holding that a state is required to provide counsel to an indigent defendant on appeal as of right). Indigent defendants have no Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel. 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (holding that there is no federal constitutional right to counsel for indigent prisoners seeking state postconviction relief). Petitioner Fernando Lopez argued that the state courts' denial of appointed counsel to help him prepare his 26(B) application violated his constitutional right to assistance of counsel because the 26(B) procedure is part of the initial direct appeal as of right. 355 F.3d 931 (6th Cir.) (holding that the Ohio Court of Appeals' decision that the petitioner was not entitled to a Sixth Amendment right to appointment of counsel for filing an application to reopen his direct appeal was not contrary to clearly established federal law). Because panels of this court have split over the correct characterization of the rule. </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/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196.htm">98-6196 -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999 </A> His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196a.htm">98-6196A -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999 </A> His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2755.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. That </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/97-3144a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With her on the briefs was A.J. With him on the brief were Wilma A. The district court departed upward from the sen tence Bridges would otherwise have received under the Unit ed States Sentencing Guidelines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0500n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Defendant argues that he is entitled to a re sentencing pursuant to United States v. Conclude that Defendant is not entitled to a Booker remand. 1 The Honorable David L. Dossie was arraigned on the criminal information and formally waived indictment. Sentencing was set for November 18. Which was denied. Dossie was indicted by the grand jury and charged with two counts of distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Dossie stipulated that the amount of drugs for both statutory and guideline purposes was more than 35 grams but less than 50 grams of cocaine base. Because the plea was conditional. Dossie reserved within his plea agreement the right to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0171p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Jimmy Ray and Kenneth Valentine were convicted of conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine powder and crack cocaine. We reverse and hold that Jimmy Ray Valentine is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial counsel thwarted his efforts to accept a plea bargain. Jimmy Ray Valentine Jimmy Ray was convicted in February 2000 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. While his motion was pending in the district court. While his application was pending. Valentine Kenneth was tried with his brother Jimmy Ray and six other defendants. Was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. Kenneth was sentenced to 292 months. Predicated on the district court's finding that at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base were involved in the offense. The merits of Kenneth's Booker challenge are properly before us. This distinction is irrelevant. Because the district court based its ruling on the legal conclusion that Jimmy Ray's proposed amendment to include a Blakely argument would be futile as Blakely was inapplicable on collateral review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1933p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which was allowed without a recorded colloquy between Henderson and the judge regarding the dangers of self representation. Henderson was not represented by counsel at a subsequent pretrial hearing where he unsuccessfully moved to suppress his confession. He was represented by counsel at his trial. We must first decide whether his habeas 2 petition was time barred under provisions of 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="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E5F3A673466BE058825734D0052AF1C/$file/0399010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2392.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: On page 34. Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. law imposes a two day mandatory minimum jail sentence on defendants who refuse to take a blood/alcohol test and are later convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 29 M.R.S.A. 1312. Roberts' constitutional right to due process was violated and his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be granted as to his two day mandatory sentence. Officer Main smelled alcohol on Roberts' breath and suspected Roberts was driving while intoxicated but initially arrested Roberts only for operating a vehicle with a suspended license in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. 2184. Which is normally read to any driver stopped or arrested for operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor pursuant to 29 M.R.S.A. 1312. The form states: By operating or attempting to operate a motor vehicle in this State you have a duty to submit to and complete chemical tests to determine your blood alcohol level and drug concentration. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0215p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We repeat below a helpful overview of the Medicare program to set the scene before exploring the procedural and substantive facts of this case.1 The Medicare program is codified in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. These insurance carriers are called Fiscal Intermediaries ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1235.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on brief for appellant. I. Background The drug trafficking and money laundering activities that underlay this case have no direct significance to the appeal. Cunan also was involved as owner of a business in New Hampshire through which DeCato allegedly laundered drug revenues. The civil actions were pending when. Were indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in Boston on charges of violating federal drug laws. The eight Maine properties at issue in the Maine civil proceedings were included. The government explained its action as follows: The principal reason that Plaintiff seeks the dismissal is judicial economy. That is. The property which is the subject of this action is the same as that of the criminal action now pending in Massachusetts. The criminal indictment in Massachusetts will go forward to trial on the merits. Continued litigation in this action is therefore a waste of the Court's time. Cunan sought an opportunity to move for costs and fees before the action was dismissed. We held that the Cunans were obliged to wait until an order of forfeiture was entered before advancing their claim preclusion argument. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044716p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> He presses three arguments: (1) his conviction must be vacated because his confessions should have been suppressed as evidence because they were made outside the six hour period in 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) and after the arresting officials violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) by unnecessarily delaying in bringing him before a federal magistrate judge. (2) remand is required because (a) he was sentenced prior to the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Because we believe that the first contention is governed by our decision in Government of the Virgin Islands v. We discern no error in the District Court's determination that Corley's confessions were voluntary. The delay in presenting him to a federal magistrate judge beyond that provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) will not result in suppressing his confessions. He is not entitled to a remand because the District Court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory. Federal officials identified Johnnie Corley as a suspect in the robbery and were later informed of an outstanding bench warrant from a state court for him on a matter unrelated to the robbery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986882.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was armed with a rifle. While Peoples was armed with a deadly weapon. Recommended that Peoples be sentenced to death for each murder by an 11 to 1 vote. 2 This opinion is organized as follows. He joined Peoples and the Franklins who were sitting around a table. 3 Peoples knew about the Corvette because he had been a member of a work crew that built a fence around the Franklins's backyard and from time to time had performed odd jobs in and around the Franklin residence. 3 Peoples soon left the table to look for the Franklins' ten year old son. He brought him to the table where Gooden and the boy's parents were sitting. Gooden replaced her gag and 4 Paul Franklin was seriously disabled as a result of shrapnel injuries suffered in Vietnam. Gooden remained with the Corvette and pick up truck while all of this was taking place. Was walking toward the Talladega Downs when Peoples arrived at the apartment complex. He told her that it was an early birthday present for his wife. As they were talking. She noticed what he was wearing a light colored shirt and blue jeans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/95-7158.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. ROBERTS </A> Was indicted on two counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2241. R. Evid. 413 was inapplicable because the indictment against Mr. Roberts was filed prior to the rule's July 9. R. Evid. 413 is inapplicable here. We have reviewed both motions and conclude they are without merit. 3 Initially. Evidence of Similar Crimes in Sexual Assault Cases (a) In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault. Evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible. May be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. (b) In a case in which the Government intends to offer evidence under this rule. Including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered. As is evident from the text of the Rule. R. Evid. 413 was designed to create a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/964141P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Darrell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/964141P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is hereby withdrawn and the amended opinion is substituted in its place. The opinion is amended in Part IV. IT IS SO ORDERED. Darrell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 2006 * This case was originally argued on October 25. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-1053a.htm">01-1053 -- GONZALES V. CITY OF CASTLE ROCK -- 10/15/2002 </A> Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/98-3077d.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Cohen were on the petition and reply. Were on the response. We conclude that we have power to determine the issues presented by the petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The mandate is issued forthwith. Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214469op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of all Florida citizens who have been convicted of a felony and have completed all terms of their incarceration. Parole but who are barred from voting under the state's felon disenfranchisement law.2 The defendants are members of Florida's Clemency Board.3 II. A felon who has completed his sentence may apply for clemency to have his civil rights restored. The requirement of a hearing is insufficient to support the plaintiffs' claim. We say nothing about whether conditioning an application for clemency on paying restitution would be an invalid poll tax. 2 Approximately seventy percent of the plaintiffs class is white. The Clemency Board is made up of the Governor of Florida and members of the Cabinet. Summary judgment is appropriate when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948543.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Criminal history departures above category VI will be reviewed for reasonableness. Based on findings as to why an upward departure is warranted and why the particular sentencing range chosen is appropriate. Included in the plea agreement was Dixon's stipulation to six prior armed robbery and burglary offenses. That his total offense level was 30. Is structure a departure by moving incrementally down the sentencing table to find a guideline range which is appropriate in your case. The Court determines that a three level increase is warranted and that will create an offense level of 33 and a criminal history category of VI which will give you a sentencing range of 235 to 293 months. Dixon contends that the district court erred in upwardly departing to a sentencing range three offense levels higher than Dixon's without first explicitly considering whether the ranges corresponding to offense levels one and two higher than Dixon's would have been appropriate. Dixon argues that the district court's procedure for determining the extent of the departure was flawed because it did not include step by step findings for each rejected sentencing range. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/00-15777.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. SMITH (4/23/2002, NO. 00-15777) </A> Circuit Judge:</A> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/995042.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The majority opinion which follows was in final form before the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in the appeal of Carhart v. Because nothing in that opinion is at odds with this Court's opinion. The District Court found the Act unconstitutional because it: (1) is void for vagueness. We will affirm. Joined what is now a majority of states in enacting a law banning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/81622405F9A7CB66882572D6008098B8/$file/0555629.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who are individuals and entities associated with the City and County of Los Angeles. Barred Plaintiffs' claim for damages from the alleged warrant falsification and that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' claim for damages from the handoff procedure. We hold that Plaintiff Whitaker's claim alleging that the wiretap that intercepted his telephone call was obtained using a falsified warrant application may proceed against Defendants Williams. Only the federal claims are before us. 5416 WHITAKER v. As summarized by the district court: The events that gave birth to the instant dispute were two separate narcotics wiretap investigations conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/00-15777.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. SMITH (4/23/2002, NO. 00-15777) </A> Circuit Judge:</A> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B207DAAE597ABD1C88256A8F0057CE4A/$file/9910282.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Who was to deliver the methamphetamine. The DEA agent was wearing a body recording device. Padilla explained that he did not have the sample with him. He made a call on his cellular telephone and then explained that the person who was supposed 9280 to bring the sample could not arrive for several hours. Another meeting was arranged for a later date. The informant was told by DEA agents to finalize the details of the purchase of thirty pounds of methamphetamine. Did not have the methamphetamine. The meeting was broken off at this news. The informant was told to contact Padilla for the purpose of obtaining the five pounds of methamphetamine. Who was still wearing the recording device. The informant alerted the agents that the methamphetamine was present. Abonce Barrera was arrested. Who was present at the first meeting. Was qualified as an expert to testify at trial as to the transcription of the recordings and their translation into English. Each member of the jury was given a copy of both the verbatim Spanish transcriptions and the English translations of those transcriptions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52D798AC97F87C4988256E5A00707BF2/$file/9910282.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Who was to deliver the methamphetamine. The DEA agent was wearing a body recording device. Padilla explained that he did not have the sample with him. He made a call on his cellular telephone and then explained that the person who was supposed 9280 to bring the sample could not arrive for several hours. Another meeting was arranged for a later date. The informant was told by DEA agents to finalize the details of the purchase of thirty pounds of methamphetamine. Did not have the methamphetamine. The meeting was broken off at this news. The informant was told to contact Padilla for the purpose of obtaining the five pounds of methamphetamine. Who was still wearing the recording device. The informant alerted the agents that the methamphetamine was present. Abonce Barrera was arrested. Who was present at the first meeting. Was qualified as an expert to testify at trial as to the transcription of the recordings and their translation into English. Each member of the jury was given a copy of both the verbatim Spanish transcriptions and the English translations of those transcriptions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015777.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sitting by designation. * The government appeals the defendant Terrence Smith's 120 month term of imprisonment imposed after Smith was found guilty by a jury of two drug offenses. Smith cross appeals and maintains that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his drug conspiracy conviction. The district court stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the OE This opinion was originally released in typescript on August 21. 2007. 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 trial may not have been picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_026.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD </A> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314400.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> In which Ochoa is a criminal defendant. Sitting by designation. 2 is an intervenor. I. BACKGROUND In the 1980s Ochoa was a high ranking member of the Medellín drug cartel based out of Medellín. Was released in 1997. He was extradited to this country in 2001. Ochoa was cash poor and land rich. Ochoa sought to admit evidence at trial about an illegal scheme called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F5E0BA088E090B858825732200756C85/$file/0530401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We granted en banc review in this case to resolve a question to which we have given inconsistent answers: Do we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the defendant entered a guilty plea in which he waived his right to appeal? Our cases offer two different views of the question whether we have jurisdiction under these circumstances. We have held that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3528_021.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD </A> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043549p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge All courts of appeals to have considered the issue of whether the rule of law announced in United States v. Applies retroactively to prisoners who were in the initial § 2255 motion stage as of the date that Booker issued have concluded that it does not. Lloyd was charged with bank fraud. Was convicted by a jury. Blakely's reasoning was that judges were imposing sentences that were not based solely on facts reflected in the verdict of the jury or admitted by the defendant. Were using a preponderance of the evidence standard to find the facts necessary to that imposition. He argued that the facts supporting the enhancements he received were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and. That the sentence imposed was in violation of Blakely. Although his motion was filed more than a year after his conviction became final. Did not rule that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional. As is required under § 2255 para. 6(3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). 3 II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/94-8543.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. DIXON </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Criminal history departures above category VI will be reviewed for reasonableness. Based on findings as to why an upward departure is warranted and why the particular sentencing range chosen is appropriate. I. Larry Armstead Dixon pled guilty to possession of a stolen firearm by a convicted felon. Included in the plea agreement was Dixon's stipulation to six prior armed robbery and burglary offenses. That his total offense level was 30. Is structure a departure by moving incrementally down the sentencing table to find a guideline range which is appropriate in your case. The Court determines that a three level increase is warranted and that will create an offense level of 33 and a criminal history category of VI which will give you a sentencing range of 235 to 293 months. R2 9. The court proceeded to impose a 250 month sentence. II. Dixon contends that the district court erred in upwardly departing to a sentencing range three offense levels higher than Dixon's without first explicitly considering whether the ranges corresponding to offense levels one and two higher than Dixon's would have been appropriate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/94-8543.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. DIXON </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Criminal history departures above category VI will be reviewed for reasonableness. Based on findings as to why an upward departure is warranted and why the particular sentencing range chosen is appropriate. I. Larry Armstead Dixon pled guilty to possession of a stolen firearm by a convicted felon. Included in the plea agreement was Dixon's stipulation to six prior armed robbery and burglary offenses. That his total offense level was 30. Is structure a departure by moving incrementally down the sentencing table to find a guideline range which is appropriate in your case. The Court determines that a three level increase is warranted and that will create an offense level of 33 and a criminal history category of VI which will give you a sentencing range of 235 to 293 months. R2 9. The court proceeded to impose a 250 month sentence. II. Dixon contends that the district court erred in upwardly departing to a sentencing range three offense levels higher than Dixon's without first explicitly considering whether the ranges corresponding to offense levels one and two higher than Dixon's would have been appropriate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A7BDC19EDAF8CC5288256E59008318BF/$file/0350609.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. That judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. So that the court can determine whether appointed counsel is needed. That summary proceedings were inappropriate for adjudicating whether Glass's conduct was contemptuous. BACKGROUND Glass is scheduled for trial in the district court shortly on several counts of making false declarations and statements in district court civil proceedings. These charges concern in part the existence and validity of a trust with which Glass claims to have some connection. Pursuant to which she was immediately taken into custody. At which Glass was supposed to discuss her objections to her appointed counsel. The district court inquired about whether Glass was eligible for indigent representation. Were the original sources of the court's contempt findings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0205p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The purpose of the Act was to prohibit the practice colloquially referred to as partial birth abortion. A perinate is defined by the Act as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2302.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for the United States. P. 42(a) and imposed a six month sentence consecutive to one under which he was already incarcerated. Were accordingly incarcerated. Winter stated that his refusal to testify was based upon the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was indicted on January 20. Claiming they are unsupported and politically motivated. His trial was scheduled to begin in October 2006. We have stayed it pending disposition of three applications that are before us: (1) Wecht's challenge of Local Rule 83.1 of the U.S. Wecht was indicted on January 20. This feud was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015936.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 2 the EPA created a scheme in which the Environmental Appeals Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032341.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> While some of the sanctions were clearly criminal in nature. They were imposed without the necessary constitutional and BRADLEY v. To the extent that the sanctions were civil in nature. Including those that have allegedly smoked. Sunbeam retains returned products for as long as they are the subject of a potential claim or lawsuit. The product is marked for destruction. Documentary claim files are not discarded with the product. Instead are retained for an additional two years after the claim is closed. The purpose of these requests was to determine if the returned blankets had any bearing on pending cases against Sunbeam being litigated by McLaughlin. Inc. is the recent postbankruptcy successor to the Sunbeam Corporation. Which was November 2. It is Sunbeam's continuing adherence to its retention policy both before and after the magistrate judge's August 8 Order that lies at the heart of this appeal. The parties then dispute whether discovery was forthcoming. 000 in the event that discovery was not completed on November 20 and 24. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1949p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="693"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954445.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogramsized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami. Investigators discovered that Appellant Mercedes Novaton was the record owner of the duplex. The nine appellants have raised a plethora of issues related to their convictions and sentences. We have carefully considered all of their arguments. We summarily reject all of those arguments that are not mentioned in this opinion. 3 1 and that she lived there with her husband Appellant Francisco Novaton. The agents investigating the Novaton residence obtained authority to intercept wire communications on various telephones used by people who were suspected of participating in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. 000 of which were transcribed). The investigators learned that several co conspirators were engaged in the distribution of cocaine through various houses in Miami. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/93-5253.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. TAMAYO </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Was convicted for laundering money in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/95-4445.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. NOVATON (10/30/2001, NO. 95-4445) </A> Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogram sized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/93-5253.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. TAMAYO </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Was convicted for laundering money in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0272p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1593.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/95-4445.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. NOVATON (10/30/2001, NO. 95-4445) </A> Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogram sized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043650p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This was in effect a clerical error. It was permissible for the District Court to correct the error under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We will therefore affirm. I. Facts Bennett and ten co defendants were indicted for crimes 2 related to a large scale conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Immediately after the jury verdict was read. There is a stipulation that defendant Bennett will forfeit two amounts of currency. Those amounts are set forth on page 38 of the indictment. A written judgment and commitment order was entered on August 30. Forfeiture was not mentioned at the sentencing 3 hearing. The written judgment included a form </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/052263P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\1-6\05-2263 US V. HAWK WING.FINAL OPN W.CON.WPD </A> A presentence report ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012060.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That McHan was required to forfeit to the United States approximately $1.5 million in proceeds obtained as a result of his criminal conduct. Charles Jr. contend (1) that under the Due Process Clause they were entitled to be heard before the district court issued the preliminary order of forfeiture. (3) that the district court violated the Seventh Amendment by denying their request to have the hearing of their petition conducted before a jury. They also make several challenges to determinations specific to assets that were not released from the forfeiture order. Sr. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016703R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Line 9 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114680.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/94-4485.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MAURICE </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. He certified that he was licensed to practice law in the state of Florida. Maurice is neither a law school graduate nor a member of the bar of any state. He was indicted on thirty three counts of mail fraud. Did not count them in calculating appellant's criminal history score because the convictions were more than ten years old. See U.S.S.G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1618.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Comey Boyd & Luskin were on brief. Were on brief. Slomovits was accepting millions of dollars in cash each week from Duvan Arboleda. The transactions were accomplished without documentation. The bills were usually in small denominations. These purchases were made at various banks by underlings (e.g. The money received in New York was transported to Rhode Island by armored car and then deposited in an account standing in the name of a controlled corporation. See 31 U.S.C.A. 5324 (West Supp. 1995) is called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/94-4485.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MAURICE </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. He certified that he was licensed to practice law in the state of Florida. Maurice is neither a law school graduate nor a member of the bar of any state. He was indicted on thirty three counts of mail fraud. Did not count them in calculating appellant's criminal history score because the convictions were more than ten years old. See U.S.S.G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-3023a.html">USA V. DALE DAVID M. </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955760.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Chief Judge: Rex Love and Jerry Sheppard were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Love also was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). I. Love and Sheppard were members of a multimillion dollar marijuana and cocaine ring. Gautier confirmed that an attempt was made on his life. Both were tried before a jury in a trial beginning February 27. Both were convicted. Love and Sheppard were tried in June 1995 in a separate trial with four other codefendants. Two of whom were fugitives at the time of trial. A. The defendants' main contention is that the district court's failure to follow Fed. Some discussion of the background of this trial and of the jury selection procedure used by the district court is appropriate. One of whom was classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EC0DA1401999D9E88256ED900693A89/$file/0330339.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The court clerk was to send these reports to the United States Sentencing Commission. We are asked to decide whether the district court exceeded its statutory or inherent authority. The United States argues that we have jurisdiction to consider its direct appeal from the district court's order denying its motion to set aside the Standing Order in this criminal case. Which was one of the first cases in which the Standing Order's requirements were triggered. If appellate jurisdiction is lacking. These questions have divided our panel. We are unanimous as to Sections I and III. Provides insight into how the requirement generally was satisfied: Most districts ask the probation office to submit the sentencing documents. This is. Particularly where the probation office is not involved in the proceeding. The Memorandum of Understanding set forth the complete list of documents to be submitted as part of the sentencing report and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/98-3077a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Cohen were on the petition and reply. Were on the response. We conclude that we have power to determine the issues presented by the petition. The district court read our decision in Barry as holding that once a prima facieviolation of Rule 6(e)(2) is established. The court is required to conduct an adversarial hearing at which the prosecutor must show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The IC was ordered to produce. Reasoning that the factors for granting a stay pending appeal were not met. The court found that the IC's likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its appeal was low given the court's conclusion that the orders are not even appealable. That the harm to movants of granting a stay was substantial because without an immediate show cause hearing. Because discovery was set to begin on July 11. We ordered an administrative stay of the district court's procedural orders so that we would have sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the petition for writ of mandamus. We now conclude that we have power to determine the issues presented in the petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec96/94-1592.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. WILES </A> 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="673"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-5004.htm">97-5004 -- ENGLISH V. CODY -- 06/30/1998 </A> That they were being detained in violation of the Constitution because they had been denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The district court judges in each case concluded Petitioners' claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were not procedurally barred. Respondents sought permission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944485.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> He certified that he was licensed to practice law in the state of Florida. Sitting by designation. * is neither a law school graduate nor a member of the bar of any state. He was indicted on thirty three counts of mail fraud. Did not count them in calculating appellant's criminal history score because the convictions were more than ten years old. Provides for limited appellate review of guideline sentences. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f). 2 We review departures from the the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes. A departure under this provision is warranted when the criminal history category significantly under represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit further crimes. Our three step analysis for sentencing departures is consistent with Williams. The legal question of the district court's interpretation of the guidelines is reviewed de novo. (11th Cir.1991). reviewed for United States v. The factual basis for a departure is under a clear error standard. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013237.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which is described in the indictment. R. Crim P. 32.2.1 Once the defendant's interest in the subject property is forfeited by the entry of a final judgment. We apply the predecessor to Rule 32.2 Rule 32 because Rule 32 was the Rule in effect on the date of the indictment which. Sought forfeiture. 2 1 interest in the property may commence an ancillary proceeding in the district court by petitioning the court pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2) to enter an order declaring that his or her interest is superior to the defendant's interest (which the final judgment forfeited to the United States).2 To prevail. The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her interest in the subject property was superior to any right. Or interest the defendant may have possessed at the time he or she committed the offense giving rise to the forfeiture. Or that he or she was a bona fide purchaser for value. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6).3 2 Section 853(n)(2) provides: Any person. Whichever is earlier. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/005237.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> All three were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. One of which is a question of first impression for this Court whether and under what circumstances the trial court must give a jury instruction on venue. Factual Background In the following recitation of the facts on which Appellants' convictions were based. Del Rosario told Daluro that he was getting travel documents for a woman named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3211a.html">USA V. EDMOND </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E748F9CE77AF8A8988256F1500755F79/$file/0350381.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Defendant's car was referred to the secondary inspection area. Defendant waived his Miranda rights and then admitted that he knew that there were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1145.html">COCHRAN CONSULTING V. UWATEC </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/06-3105a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Amy Berman Jackson and Gloria B. Zener were on the brief for amici curiae Thomas S. Were on the brief as amici curiae in support of appellant. Dietz were on the brief for amicus curiae Abner J. Poe was on the brief for amici curiae Stanley M. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Weismann were on the brief for amicus curiae Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington supporting affirmance. Barber were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of appellee and urging affirmance. Di Liberto were on the brief for amicus curiae Judicial Watch. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a motion. The question on appeal is whether the procedures under which the search was conducted were sufficiently protective of the legislative privilege created by the Speech or Debate Clause. The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive and accordingly violated the Clause. Depends upon a determination of which documents are privileged and then. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6110E37D1BB6235888256F0A005794A0/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024194.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> It asserts that the error was harmless and that Curbelo's convictions should therefore be affirmed. Every court to have addressed the question has held to the contrary. A superseding indictment was returned on February 6. A jury of twelve was impaneled for Curbelo's trial.1 The jurors were sworn shortly after 4 o'clock that afternoon. The trial was adjourned for the day. Not his cross examination court was adjourned early because of an air conditioning problem in the courthouse. The court informed the parties that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054997p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Tomko was also ordered to undergo twenty2 eight days of in house treatment for alcohol abuse. This sentence is unreasonable in light of the circumstances of this case and the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It was therefore an abuse of discretion for the District Court to impose it and we will vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing. Inc. is classified as a flow through </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-6298.htm">00-6298 -- DANIELS V. U.S. -- 06/25/2001 </A> Because this is his first habeas application following the amendment of section 2255 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Applying AEDPA's standards to his application is impermissibly retroactive. We conclude that no impermissible retroactive result will arise from the application of AEDPA's rules to Mr. Daniels' request. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/01-2301.htm">01-2301 -- U.S. V. HAHN -- 03/04/2004 </A> Hahn was convicted of marijuana and firearms violations and sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. We hold that we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Part III.C of the Per Curiam opinion is an opinion concurring in the result. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0428p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is whether and to what extent the availability of Rule 60(b) is restricted by the limits imposed on the filing of second or successive habeas petitions by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/04-3092a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: When the police have reasonable suspicion that a person committed. Is committing. Or is about to commit a crime. The police have a witness or victim look at the suspect). Unzipping the outer jacket ultimately led the officers to discover that Askew was illegally carrying a gun. Askew's primary argument to this Court is that the initial unzipping of his jacket was an unreasonable search. Where specific findings are lacking. Noticing that Askew was a man with a mustache who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1239.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> If in the opinion of the magistrate the evidence shows that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it. We will first discuss the Supreme Court's ruling in Press Enterprise II. PRESS ENTERPRISE II Section 868 of the California Penal Code required preliminary hearings to be open to the public unless </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/742C988AD526C1E688257067004D01A2/$file/0430091.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Weiland argues: 1) that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) requires suppression of the firearms and ammunition seized during a search of his home because the warrant that authorized the search was not requested by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A32D0DBFC890578788257042008169C7/$file/0415477.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Mary Doe1 challenges the State of California's jurisdiction Pseudonyms are used to identify the mother. Who was domiciled on the Elem Indian Colony reservation at the time she was removed from Mary Doe's custody by the Lake County Department of Social Services. Which was passed in 1978 to ensure the tribes a role in adjudicating child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 1963.2 ICWA provides that tribes will have exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involving Indian children domiciled or residing on the reservation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032173p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD82194097E1066888256C3000546E6D/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Where Williams was staying. They went to a 7 Eleven where Owens was sweeping the parking lot. Saying: </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//june2001/00-10231.man.html">ROE V. AWARE WOMAN CTR. FOR CHOICE (6/8/2001, NO. 00-10231) </A> Circuit Judge: </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=95-1731.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Markopoulos were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee McCabe. Zinger's apartment was located. 2 [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/1999/01/97-3178.htm">97-3178 -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999 </A> Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-10231.man.html">ROE V. AWARE WOMAN CTR. FOR CHOICE (6/8/2001, NO. 00-10231) </A> Circuit Judge: </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/1999/01/97-3178a.htm">97-3178A -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999 </A> The word </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-3130a.html">USA V. MCKIE BRYAN </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://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1286p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0199p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> (2) whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. The proper sentencing range was from 24 to 30 months' imprisonment. The district court's sentence was reasonable. Although the district court may have committed error in considering one of Matheny's prior arrests when imposing sentence. This error does not require reversal because it was not plain and did not affect Matheny's substantial rights. Matheny later testified that he had originally purchased the pistol for his wife because she felt uncomfortable when she was working alone at their business. Possession of a weapon.1 Matheny never spent any time in jail for any of his convictions because all of his sentences were suspended. Only the 1999 conviction was counted towards his criminal history category. The 1988 and 1991 convictions were not counted by operation of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(3). Although he was also arrested four other times (in 1982. All of these charges were either dismissed or had unknown dispositions. The 1982 arrest was for possession of a controlled substance for resale. </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/July2003/012951.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Whether we have jurisdiction to consider this case. We will therefore vacate the District Court's dismissal. Fiorelli was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment following his convictions for racketeering. Fiorelli's motion alleged that his counsel failed to disclose a plea agreement offered by the government that would have resulted in a 60 month term of imprisonment. Fiorelli alleged only that Carroll </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4070.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Taj Becker is a medical doctor in St. She was investigated by Utah's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) for alleged billing irregularities. Those charges were later dismissed by state prosecutors concerned about the methods MFCU used to obtain records and assess Becker's billing practices. (1) This Cross Appeal raises no issues not implicated by the Appellant's brief. (2) The Honorable Claire V. Sitting by designation. <hr> After the charges were dismissed. Alleging that the MFCU investigation was a sham to force her to pay civil penalties to avoid criminal prosecution. Her lawsuit was based on several federal and state theories. I. Factual Background Becker is a board certified neurologist practicing in St. The MFCU investigation centered on a suspicion that Becker </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-2064.htm">A. BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, MOTIONS, ORDERS, AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS97-2064 -- U.S. V. GONZALES -- 07/28/1998 </A> If there is a right of access. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0024p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Radvansky was arrested by Telegdy and Saxer after breaking into a house. In which he was renting a room. Despite the officers' pre existing knowledge that he was currently involved in a dispute with his landlord. Radvansky was placed under arrest for burglary. Finding that there was probable cause for the arrest. Because it concluded there was no constitutional violation. Both in determining that there was probable cause to arrest Radvansky and that Telegdy and Saxer were entitled to qualified immunity. The decision below is REVERSED with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim against Telegdy and Saxer but AFFIRMED in all other respects on other grounds. Pursuant to an oral agreement whereby he paid Rosemark $450 in rent each month.1 Radvansky has stated that his rent was fully paid. Despite recognizing that this was a civil dispute between the two parties. Informing 1 Radvansky has claimed throughout the litigation that his tenancy was pursuant to an oral lease agreement. Radvansky has argued that the oral lease is enforceable through the doctrine of part performance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-40985.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> PER CURIAM:* Federal habeas relief was denied Texas state prisoner Rickey Lynn Lewis concerning a capital murder conviction for which the death sentence was imposed. The district court certified one of whether Lewis was numerous requested issues for appeal (COA): excused. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. (4) & (5) counsel was ineffective for failing both to make a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection objection (where psychological testimony supporting future dangerousness was based. Each COA request is DENIED. The denial of habeas relief is AFFIRMED. I. The following facts are based on those stated in Lewis v. Was struck in the head at least twice. Was lifted by two individuals. Hilton was led outside and later directed into the living room. Where she was sexually assaulted by the man who found her in the bathroom. She heard sounds indicating the house was being ransacked. legs. Somebody will find you in the morning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962599.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court set aside the jury's verdict against Jubal Register for using a firearm This decision is rendered by a quorum. We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/96-2599.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGISTER (7/29/1999, NO. 96-2599) </A> We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962599.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Senior Circuit Judge.* *This decision is rendered by a quorum. We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/96-2599.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGISTER (7/29/1999, NO. 96-2599) </A> We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214469.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Eight Florida citizens1 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1329.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inc. were on brief. Gray were on brief. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/991613.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The defendants are the District. Detective Hahn were entitled to qualified immunity. She was a leader in a local chapter of a group known as Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity. That she felt it was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/022859P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Julie Parton's grandparents were murdered at their Missouri home on August 27. Beck was arrested in Miami on September 5. Both sets of statements were admitted at his 1982 trial. Beck was convicted of two counts of capital murder. Concluding that the statements should have been suppressed because the questioning violated Beck's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. 2 arguing that admission of the statements violated his constitutional rights because his Miranda waivers were not knowing and voluntary. Because his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached before the statements were solicited. To whom the case was assigned with the consent of the parties. We reject respondent's contention that we lack jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely. That motion was timely filed within ten days of the district court's order under the prison mailbox rule. Beck's notice of appeal was timely. Background We will summarize the relevant facts as found by the state courts. An assistant public defender who was representing Beck on unrelated charges. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50013E0496E97593882571920079F242/$file/0550191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Penile plethysmograph testing is a procedure that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324) </A> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts. <CENTER>I.</CENTER> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/021603.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Paul Camiolo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/053886P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellant John Doe Corporation (JDC)1 appeals from the district court's2 judgment holding that the Government did not improperly use grand jury materials as 1 All materials in this appeal were filed under seal to protect the secrecy of the grand jury investigation and the privacy of those involved. No identifying names will be used and pseudonyms have been substituted as required. The district court's determination that it was not improper for the Department of Justice to disclose grand jury materials to another Department of the Government through ex parte orders issued by the district court without giving notice to JDC. I. JDC is the target of a criminal investigation originated by a cabinet level Department of the United States (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0121p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Tewksbury was working alone as the night clerk at the King Kwik convenience store at 9870 Pippin Road in Hamilton County. Monte was married and was the father of three children. Robert Shephard was driving northbound on Pippin Road. Monte was bleeding from his side. Went back to the telephone which was still off the hook. Monte was transported to a hospital. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324) </A> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts. <CENTER>I.</CENTER> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1663_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Burgess was involuntarily committed to a Wisconsin state mental health facility after a jury found that he was a sexually violent person as defined in Wisconsin's Sexually Violent Person Commitment Statutes. Burgess now appeals to this court. 2 No. 05 1663 What distinguishes this case from the many habeas corpus petitions this court entertains each term is that it involves one additional sovereign Burgess is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. We conclude that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin's ultimate resolution of Burgess's jurisdictional claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law as articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States. I Burgess is an enrolled member of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Lac du Flambeau). He is a legal resident of his tribal reservation land. Burgess was convicted of attempted second degree sexual assault of a child (a crime that he committed on his reservation) in the Circuit Court for Vilas County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012562.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This case is before us on a petition by the United States for a writ of mandamus directing a District Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to vacate his order transferring this criminal action against defendant Ruth Streeval to Tennessee and to refrain from transferring the case unless the showing and findings required by Fed. P. 21(b) have been made. At issue before us is not the discretionary decision to transfer vel non but the procedure to be followed before such a transfer order is entered. Were charged by a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a nine count indictment with mail fraud. Binkley was also charged with money laundering 2 and criminal forfeiture. Streeval was. Was sentenced to twenty seven months imprisonment. Which in turn was filed in Tennessee. The case was docketed as 01 CR 84 and assigned to Judge Todd Campbell. After Judge Campbell was advised of the challenge to the transfer and this court's decision to hear argument on the matter. We are most appreciative of Judge Campbell's accommodation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-4184.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Harry Lowe and Danny Smith were convicted by a jury of several counts of conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The defendants appeal on several grounds related to whether they were given a fair trial and whether the district court erred in determining their criminal sentences. Was working at the home of his friend Harry Lowe. Swick inferred that Rubalcava was trafficking in marijuana. A deal was struck for five pounds of marijuana (approximately 2.3 kilograms) for $5. The plan failed when Rubalcava delivered the first 90 pounds but refused to deliver any more until he was paid. The first transaction was for 50 pounds (or 23 kilograms) at $35. Rivas was usually given $300 to $400 for his efforts. 4 Nos. 00 4184 & 00 4214 3. They were taken to Mexico and introduced to a person called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-11012.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012) </A> They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8138B5E4723C6FE988257150005B327E/$file/0455324.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unable to obtain shelter on the night each was cited or arrested. I. Facts and Procedural Background The facts underlying this appeal are largely undisputed. Robert Lee Purrie ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11B67E922D0E8515882569EE006209AE/$file/9935552.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> That was previously unavailable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1839.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Barlow were on brief. The reasons for this trend are difficult to pinpoint. Some commentators have linked it with heightened efforts to fight organized crime and drug trafficking. Which stated that: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9459D48B6EAC2C0888256B8200079405/$file/0199000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Opinion by Judge Graber *Charles Goldsmith is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 13530. Was the relevant date for determining whether Arizona met the requirements of Chapter 154 for the purpose of Petitioner's case and that (2) Arizona's system provided (a) for the payment of reasonable 4492 litigation expenses and (b) adequate competency standards for appointed counsel. Judges Graber and McKeown have voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. The petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. & III: The decision in this case is similar to that in Bush v. Gore1 good for this case and this case only except that here the decision is not even good for this case. Was entirely irrelevant to the outcome of the case before it. (d) Arizona was unquestionably not in compliance with Chapter 154 at the time the appeal was heard. (f) no other state in the nation has ever been held to have successfully opted in under Chapter 154. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1346p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Two significant constitutional questions are presented for our review. The first is whether the government's use of acquitted codefendant Mercedes Travis. Who Voigt alleges was counsel to the Trust and to him personally. The second is whether the district court violated Voigt's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when. We must decide whether those statutes require formal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/012562.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This case is before us on a petition by the United States for a writ of mandamus directing a District Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to vacate his order transferring this criminal action against defendant Ruth Streeval to Tennessee and to refrain from transferring the case unless the showing and findings required by Fed. P. 21(b) have been made. At issue before us is not the discretionary decision to transfer vel non but the procedure to be followed before such a transfer order is entered. Were charged by a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a nine count indictment with mail fraud. Binkley was also charged with money laundering 2 and criminal forfeiture. Streeval was. Was sentenced to twenty seven months imprisonment. Which in turn was filed in Tennessee. The case was docketed as 01 CR 84 and assigned to Judge Todd Campbell. After Judge Campbell was advised of the challenge to the transfer and this court's decision to hear argument on the matter. We are most appreciative of Judge Campbell's accommodation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-11012.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012) </A> They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F42B0AF4BF78063D88256E5A00707A44/$file/9935552.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> That was previously unavailable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/96a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0446p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That Ohio's first attempt to restrict partial birth abortions violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it imposed an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/964108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Starr is to investigate and prosecute matters </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032282p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is the habeas petition of Lisa Michelle Lambert. Lambert is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for first degree murder. Lambert was released into the custody of her attorneys on April 16. Her freedom was short lived. Where a PCRA Court (again Judge Stengel) held a six week hearing and determined in a comprehensive opinion that relief under the PCRA was not warranted. Judge Dalzell held that the state courts' findings were null and void because they lacked jurisdiction to hear Lambert's PCRA petition. The case was assigned to Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That the PCRA Court's findings were not null and void and were entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0127p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff's conviction was vacated in 2000 after DNA tests established that the sole physical evidence linking Plaintiff to either of the crime scenes several hairs could not have come from Plaintiff. All charges against Plaintiff were dismissed on August 25. Was awakened by an unknown. Page 3 determined was Vaseline. Police were called to the area. Told Plaintiff that they were investigating an incident unrelated to Mrs. Were allowed to search Plaintiff's apartment. V had seen Plaintiff at the apartment complex and was now sure that he was her assailant. Clark was presumably referring to Mrs. Noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53A145912FACC17088256E3D005D93E0/$file/0230184.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Daychild and Neiss were both convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Montana of conspiracy to possess and/or distribute marijuana. Neiss was also found guilty of unlawfully possessing with intent to distribute an additional stash of marijuana. Daychild was sentenced to thirty three months' imprisonment and Neiss to forty four months' imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Noticed James Daychild and Patrick Neiss </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/999005.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Thus that our analysis and resolution of Banks's Mills claims was proper. We will endorse the reasoning set forth in the remainder of our prior opinion. I. George Banks was sentenced to death for the murder of thirteen people in Wilkes Barre. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on direct appeal. Which was denied in August of 1999. Finding meritorious Banks's argument that his death sentence was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court reversed a death sentence where there was a substantial probability that a reasonable jury could have understood the sentencing instructions and forms to disallow the consideration of mitigating factors not unanimously found to exist. A reasonable possibility existed that the jurors believed they were precluded from considering mitigating evidence they had not found unanimously. We were presented with the question of whether Mills was applicable for purposes of our collateral review of Banks's conviction and sentence under 3 Teague v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034253.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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 $3 million in tax revenues. These services were often conducted at Hammoud's home. Hammoud who is acquainted with both Nasserallah and Fadlallah. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-12343.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ-CLARK (6/5/2002, NO. 01-12343) </A> We are presented with the specific question of whether a district court has jurisdiction. To reduce a prisoner's sentence based upon its conclusion that the sentence it had originally imposed was erroneous due to a grouping error under the Sentencing Guidelines. Because we conclude that the district court did not have such jurisdiction to modify the original sentence. BACKGROUND </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A533633906C9B7288256D3D006F8CFF/$file/0117046.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is retroactively applicable to criminal convictions that had become final by the time of the Supreme Court's decision. I Montalvo was charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The CCE statute reads: [A] person is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise if (1) he violates any provision of [these subchapters] the punishment for which is a felony. Such violation is a part of a continuing series of violations of [these subchapters] which are undertaken by such person in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer. The government alleged that Montalvo was involved in thirteen felony drug offenses. The trial judge did not give the instruction that Richardson would subsequently require.1 Soon after Richardson was decided and while his habeas petition was still pending before the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-12343.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ-CLARK (6/5/2002, NO. 01-12343) </A> We are presented with the specific question of whether a district court has jurisdiction. To reduce a prisoner's sentence based upon its conclusion that the sentence it had originally imposed was erroneous due to a grouping error under the Sentencing Guidelines. Because we conclude that the district court did not have such jurisdiction to modify the original sentence. BACKGROUND </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0020p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> An Ohio defendant seeking to file an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim must file an application to reopen in the state court of appeals where the appeal was decided rather than in a state trial court. This Court held that an application to reopen appeal under Rule 26(B) of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure is part of a criminal defendant's direct appeal. The difference matters because a defendant is constitutionally entitled to counsel only during the direct appeal process. 396 (1985) (holding that a defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal). 555 (1987) (holding that a defendant is not constitutionally entitled to counsel at any stage of criminal proceedings beyond a direct appeal as of right). We conclude that White is not controlling in this case. The state court's decision was not contrary to clearly established Federal law. An application for reopening shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/985342.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Only one of those two exhausted claims is befor e us now.1 In the one claim that we consider. Buhl ar gues that he was denied his constitutional right to conduct his own defense during his criminal trial in state court. W e hold that the trial court's rejection of Buhl's clear and unequivocal assertion of his right to proceed pr o se was improper. We will vacate the district court's ruling and remand for further procedures consistent with this opinion. Buhl's terrorized victim was only able to 1. Buhl is currently an inmate at the U.S. Serving a separate sentence of life imprisonment that is unrelated to. The instant appeal only relates to the aggregate sentence of life imprisonment plus 30 years incarceration that was imposed by the State of New Jersey. 2 escape when Pennsylvania police stopped her car to investigate its temporary license plate. She was then able to run to the patrol car and tell the officers that she had been kidnaped. He was captured appr oximately one month later. He was successfully prosecuted in federal court as well as the state courts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania for the various state and federal crimes he had committed in each jurisdiction during his rampage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9725.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Lines 3 4 the citation is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/00-13125.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WATTLETON (7/9/2002, NO. 00-13125) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0225p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who was a member of the panel. A supporting affidavit that was crossreferenced in the warrant and that particularly described the things to be seized had been placed under seal and thus was not present during the search. BATF agent Michael Johnson uncovered the scheme when he found documents in a Missouri gun dealer's shop that linked Baranski to the dealer and when he learned that one of Baranski's letters of interest was forged. The agents were met by Saeid Shafizadeh. At which point the officers told him that it was under seal. One agent then told Shafizadeh that they were looking for firearms owned by Baranski (or by his company. Shafizadeh complained that the search was illegal because the warrant itself failed to describe with particularity what the agents could seize. Escorted the agents to the basement of the building where the bonded warehouse was located. The court concluded that probable cause supported the warrant and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0935p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> (4) in adding four points to Harris' offense level because the mace the district court found he had used on two tellers during one of the robberies was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-3058a.html">USA V. SHELTON WADE </A> United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief for the appellee. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1066.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948621.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Supp.1995).1 21 U.S.C.A. § 853(n) (West The question of first impression presented in this case is whether this § 853(n) proceeding. Is Honorable Alfred T. The § 853(n) procedure is made expressly applicable to criminal forfeitures under § 982(a) by 18 U.S.C.A. § 982(b)(1) (West Supp.1995). 1 * a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUxNzUtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5175-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that anyone accused of a crime </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992110.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which were grounded upon allegations that he threatened a grand jury. Concluding that the Government's prosecution was not vexatious. Was not authorized to practice law in the Northern District of West Virginia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/00-13125.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WATTLETON (7/9/2002, NO. 00-13125) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0322p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because the challenged process was constitutionally sufficient. A $25 fee is assessed for the passing of bad checks.1 The County contracts with Check 1 The complaint alleges that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3624A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Informing him that he was banned from all public parks under the City's jurisdiction. Children were the victims. Doe was arrested for peeping into the windows of an apartment in West Lafayette. Doe was arrested for public intoxication and resisting law enforcement following a report that he was tapping on the rear window of a female's house. Which was finalized in 1991. Doe was placed on house arrest from January of 1992 to January of 1996. He then was on probation until early January of 2000. They were underage. They were behind the there's a dropoff. They were down in that area. Q. What was your purpose in going to Murdock Park that Saturday evening? As I was going home that night. I was at Columbian Park. I guess I was. I was in the mood of cruising. Q. Were you having those urges that night? What were you thinking about? ... My thoughts were thoughts I had before when I see children. Those thoughts were there. They were just thoughts. Was aware of Mr. Chief Reed explained that he gave this advice </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0075p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is one of Perry's victims. Ordered Perry to make all payments to the clerk's office so that the clerk could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313662.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Only the second Rule 35(b) motion is at issue in this appeal. Moreno was convicted of drug and money laundering crimes and sentenced to 130 months' imprisonment. Although the information was helpful. Was apprehended.1 Moreno agreed to cooperate with the government's prosecution of Ponce and to testify for the government at Ponce's trial. In Ponce was one of the codefendants named in the indictment with Moreno. Rule 35(b) restricted the government's sentence reduction motions made one year or more after a defendant's sentence to circumstances where the defendant's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-3058a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief for the appellee. We conclude that the EAJA does not apply to the appellants who are intervenors in a criminal abatement proceeding and that the appellants have failed to demonstrate an entitlement to fees under the Hyde Amendment. Holding that an order of abatement is a mandatory sanction upon conviction of keeping a disor derly house under section 2722. Court of Appeals would hold that conviction for keeping a disorderly house under section 2722 will require an abatement order pursuant to section 2717 only if that house was used. The government failed to estab lish in the district court that the house was used for such purposes. The appellants then filed a fee petition with the district court but their request was denied. We are asked to decide whether the appellants interve nors in a criminal proceeding who successfully challenged an abatement order entered as part of a criminal sentence may recover from the United States attorney's fees arising from their challenge of the abatement order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1130p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We must determine whether Baird was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI4MDktcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2809-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I Ronald Wells is an inmate in the Green Haven Correctional Facility. Magistrate Judge) granted Wells's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his appointed counsel abandoned at trial a theory that someone else Richie Roman committed the crime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3061.htm">97-3061 -- U.S. V. SHINAULT -- 07/08/1998 </A> The defendant was charged with two counts of violating the Hobbs Act. Including contentions that the trial violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and that underrepresentation of minority racial groups in the pool from which his jury was drawn violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. A jury with no alternates was sworn. (5) that Congress did not have the power to enact the Hobbs Act. The Jury Act </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3061a.htm">97-3061A -- U.S. V. SHINAULT -- 07/08/1998 </A> The defendant was charged with two counts of violating the Hobbs Act. Including contentions that the trial violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and that underrepresentation of minority racial groups in the pool from which his jury was drawn violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. A jury with no alternates was sworn. (5) that Congress did not have the power to enact the Hobbs Act. The Jury Act </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0263p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> REVERSE the district court's denial of the writ with respect to Petitioner's sentence because Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his sentencing. 1 No. 04 3207 Haliym v. Marcellus Williams and Joann Richards were stabbed to death in their apartment located at 49th and Central in Cleveland. Was visiting his father. At the time and was also stabbed. Was indicted on April 6. A motion for leave to file a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was granted. At approximately 10:00 p.m. as he was leaving his father's apartment to go to the store. He was approached by three men who were in an orange Chevette. Was in the apartment. Speights advised appellant that Williams was in. The three entered and were seated. Richards was present with her baby. At that point Speights was knocked down. He was able to observe appellant stabbing Richards. Michael was stabbing Speights. Also present in the apartment was seven year old Albert Richards. He was in the bedroom and came out in response to the noise and observed the stabbings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2279.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Initial en banc consideration is denied. The opinion is joined by KELLY and BRISCOE. The Supreme Court held that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were incompatible with the Sixth Amendment. 543 U.S. 220. Is in no sense bound by them. He is bound only by the statutory sentencing factors. Which are both numerous and vague. As I have previously noted. Serious tension exists <hr> between this court's post Booker precedents regarding appellate review of sentences and that portion of Booker holding that the Guidelines are no longer mandatory. The ability of district courts to exercise true discretion and vary from the range set out in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines is subject to significant and unwarranted procedural impediments. Because the procedural impediments imposed on the district courts by Atencio are inconsistent with Booker. Are not supported by case law or other governing authority. Are bad policy. Which notice must identify each and every ground the district court is considering in support of such a sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BAA25A9642E5CC2E88256CEF0078ADD5/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062624p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> At issue in this case are the rights of a criminal alien to challenge the final order of removal entered against him by the Attorney General. The Government argues that we are without jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's tardy challenge to the agency's removal order. Were we to accept the Government's position. Although we agree with Petitioner that the Government's interpretation of REAL ID would have constitutional ramifications. That we are without jurisdiction. We will accordingly dismiss the Petition. 3 I. Factual and Procedural History Petitioner Vladislav Kolkevich is a twenty five year old male native and citizen of Russia who arrived in the United States with his mother and father on March 11. Although both of his parents have since become United States citizens. Kolkevich was convicted in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas of two counts of robbery. He was then sentenced to a term of 4½ to 10 years in prison and remains incarcerated. The IJ's ruling was based almost entirely on her favorable view of the testimony given by Kolkevich's expert 4 witness. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0178p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Bowker was arrested on August 29. Bowker was charged UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Bowker filed several pretrial motions which are the subject of this appeal a pro se motion to represent himself. The emails were sent from several different email addresses and purported to be from an individual variously identified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-5252a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Robert F. Brink mann were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. On the brief were Peter D. The only circuit then to have considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM4ODctcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3887-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We hold that the constitutionality of New York's DNA statute is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0399p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We hold that Judge Clunk is entitled to judicial immunity. BACKGROUND Sean Brookings was born female. Counsel for the decedent's surviving son in a will contest action. Brookings was later arrested and charged with committing a misdemeanor in the first degree through a continuing course of conduct. Claiming that the judge had violated his civil rights by pressuring the prosecutor's office to have him arrested and that Judge Clunk acted outside his jurisdiction in doing so. Concluding that Judge Clunk's actions were non judicial and that he was not entitled to absolute judicial immunity. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The court's jurisdiction to review this interlocutory appeal is based on the principle that a district court's denial of a claim of immunity. Is immediately appealable. The Supreme Court has stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1583OP.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. This is the third appeal that Ramiro L. N </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B79E8AC1EBB08A9A88256BE90080123E/$file/0015635.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The primary issue in this case is whether such a certificate was required. Or whether the Bank's production of the Flowers' financial records pursuant to the subpoena was exempt from the RFPA. Is an investigative proceeding that is required under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) before a general court martial may be convened. FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK 9433 conduct in response to the Army's Article 32 subpoena was within the RFPA's exemption for information disclosed in the course of litigation between the government and a private citizen. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because subpoenas are not authorized in Article 32 proceedings. The subpoena was not lawfully issued. It acted at its peril and it is not entitled to the protection of the RFPA exemptions on which it relies. Judgment on the pleadings was inappropriate. We also conclude that the district court should have granted the Flowers' motion for leave to amend. The Flowers' challenge to the denial of their motion for reconsideration is moot. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/b79e8ac1ebb08a9a88256be90080123e/$FILE/0015635.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The primary issue in this case is whether such a certificate was required. Or whether the Bank's production of the Flowers' financial records pursuant to the subpoena was exempt from the RFPA. Is an investigative proceeding that is required under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) before a general court martial may be convened. FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK 9433 conduct in response to the Army's Article 32 subpoena was within the RFPA's exemption for information disclosed in the course of litigation between the government and a private citizen. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because subpoenas are not authorized in Article 32 proceedings. The subpoena was not lawfully issued. It acted at its peril and it is not entitled to the protection of the RFPA exemptions on which it relies. Judgment on the pleadings was inappropriate. We also conclude that the district court should have granted the Flowers' motion for leave to amend. The Flowers' challenge to the denial of their motion for reconsideration is moot. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/41BC80735C5EFDC588256FA500058027/$file/0330532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Should have been suppressed due to alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. The warrant was not supported by probable cause. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000). This house on North Applegate Road was occupied by Salvador Martinez Garcia and his wife. It was located on the Noble Dairy. JOINT officers were unable to hear his conversations because of static interference. The buy was unsuccessful: Scott returned and told Doland that Juan Carlos had refused to give him methamphetamine. They were unsuccessful. Hernandez Salazar did not have methamphetamine at the house and left Doland with Juan Carlos while he went out. Juan Carlos was not present during this third buy. Had provided information that was accurate and subsequently corroborated. That he had advised Doland that giving false information in support of a search warrant is a crime. One of the confidential informants was given and passed a polygraph test regarding the veracity of this information. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2C456DF30D654CF2882572C0007E6A69/$file/0550608.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> In circumstances where there is some indication of a holdout juror. I. Background Appellant Michael Joseph Murphy was charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for making false claims and statements in connection with a government contract. The court received a note signed by the jury foreperson that stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI3NTQtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2754-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Those defendants who are initially released subject to an order of conditions may. Be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYxNjRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-6164_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Our question is whether. Where the two are not the same. Because we conclude that a criminal defendant can only be made to forfeit what was his in the first place. Was indicted on October 5. 2000 on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to launder money stemming from activity alleged to have occurred between 1997 and October 2000. The indictment also contained forfeiture counts alleging that several properties were subject to forfeiture. Maria Caporale are now subject to two claims of ownership. Because the time line of events is critical in determining whose interests in the Premises are valid and to what extent. The deed of conveyance was recorded with the Office of the City Register of the City of New York. The Parmann mortgage was recorded with the City Register on the same day. The Wilmington mortgage was recorded on November 30. We presume that the Parmann mortgage was released as part of the refinancing. 2000 between the time when 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Serendensky and Caporale refinanced their mortgage and the time the Wilmington mortgage was actually recorded the government filed an indictment charging Serendensky with conspiracy to commit bank fraud. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D86FE52B4E4EBBE88256CDF00834482/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that occurred in San Diego in 1997 and 1998. 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="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-1340.htm">99-1340 -- U.S. V. HINTON -- 06/02/2000 </A> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959059.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That were tried before the district court in 1993. The primary issue at trial was whether Benlate 50 DF a fungicide manufactured by DuPont and sold to the plaintiffs for use at their nurseries was contaminated with highly toxic herbicides known as sulfonylureas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959059.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That were tried before the district court in 1993. The primary issue at trial was whether Benlate 50 DF a fungicide manufactured by DuPont and sold to the Honorable Jerome Farris. Sitting by designation * plaintiffs for use at their nurseries was contaminated with highly toxic herbicides known as sulfonylureas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0484C727D43CCD9788256E5A00707AD9/$file/9955395.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Often contentious accounting process and was preparing his report recommending the ultimate allocation of millions of dollars in assets between the brothers. The district court was confronted with the tricky task of determining what actually happened and whether Frederick had attempted to defraud the court. The procedural protections the accused party is entitled to before sanctions may be imposed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Frederick Hanshaw is the sole shareholder of F. Gordon Hanshaw is the president of Emerald River Development. Was also a named party. Her interests are coextensive with Gordon's and treated the same. 4400 court ordered the dissolution of the partnership and appointed a receiver to oversee allocation of partnership assets. The district court finding that Enterprises was Frederick's alter ego and that he was its agent. Frederick and Enterprises argue that the district court's sanction and surcharge were tantamount to a finding of criminal contempt and. Frederick should have been afforded various procedural protections applicable to criminal trials. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0205p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Garcia Echaverria argues that his conviction for unlawful reentry should be vacated because (1) his initial removal was unlawful. Because at the time he was removed. The Kentucky drug conviction for which he was removed was on direct appeal. (2) his initial removal violated due process because at the time he was removed. His petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C28BC543D12A12F288256A25005ABA1F/$file/9955395.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Often contentious accounting process and was preparing his report recommending the ultimate allocation of millions of dollars in assets between the brothers. The district court was confronted with the tricky task of determining what actually happened and whether Frederick had attempted to defraud the court. The procedural protections the accused party is entitled to before sanctions may be imposed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Frederick Hanshaw is the sole shareholder of F. Gordon Hanshaw is the president of Emerald River Development. Was also a named party. Her interests are coextensive with Gordon's and treated the same. 4400 court ordered the dissolution of the partnership and appointed a receiver to oversee allocation of partnership assets. The district court finding that Enterprises was Frederick's alter ego and that he was its agent. Frederick and Enterprises argue that the district court's sanction and surcharge were tantamount to a finding of criminal contempt and. Frederick should have been afforded various procedural protections applicable to criminal trials. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY2OTEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6691-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This appeal is taken from the most recent order issued in this longrunning litigation. BACKGROUND This is the third time this Section 1983 action comes to this Court. Six of the seven named plaintiffs were arrested for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The seventh had her car seized after her estranged husband was arrested for drugs and weapons possession while using it. The vehicles were seized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964530.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Each Loan Status Report gave HLI the false impression that the funds originated from legitimate medical businesses as required by the written loan agreement between MPS and HLI. 2 (2) In the third sentence of the second full paragraph on page 14 of the slip opinion replace the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D03ABDFF7277C99F88256A610081EA0E/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Concerned that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1612.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Kimberly Homan and Sheketoff & Homan were on brief for appellants Cerezo. With whom Monserrate Law Office was on brief for appellant Monserrate Matienzo. Were on brief for appellee. I BACKGROUND Appellants' clients were indicted in 1997 for theft of federal property and money laundering. Dealings between the prosecution and defense teams were acrimonious from the start. It entered a civility order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0269p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is an appeal from the district court's award of summary judgment to the state of Michigan in a putative class action case that challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions of the State's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The plaintiff represents one of two proposed classes of individuals who were assigned to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5145.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> filed supplemental authority seeking relief under United States v. Bellamy was indicted for drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. The judgment was entered on April 29. Agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE0NTRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1454_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Contending that because Peterson was convicted of bank larceny. This appeal raises two questions: (1) is the government authorized to appeal a district court's ruling dismissing a petition for a probation violation hearing. (2) was bank larceny a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0768117AF3AA6FDE88256E5A00707B75/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0013p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This Court further finds that the trial court's upward departure by three offense levels was warranted by the circumstances of this case and was not an abuse of discretion. As a basis for departure premised on the defendant's criminal history was not erroneous under the circumstances of this case. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 10 United States v. Barber 3 While the Government assumes that a departure from the defendant's original offense level rather than criminal history category based on prior3criminal conduct was error. This Court is of a different view. This is particularly true when the district court articulated the fact that by increasing the offense level. It was reaching the same result as if it increased by two levels the criminal history category. This Court is of the view that to reverse a departure on such basis would elevate form above substance. His sentence will be computed under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The Defendant understands that the final determination concerning the calculation of his sentence will be made by the Court after its review of the facts and of any report prepared by the United States Probation Office. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-3014.htm">01-3014 -- U.S. V. THOMPSON -- 04/16/2002 </A> 3731. Because this court concludes that an indictment is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412676ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. Rehearing en banc is DENIED. /s/ J. This Court has left intact our circuit law on Booker plain error as it is laid out by our panel decision in this case. Which was followed in Duncan and Curtis. Establishes that the use of extra verdict enhancements under the pre Booker mandatory guidelines scheme is Sixth Amendment error that is plain. Shelton adds to our circuit law the rule that while pre Booker sentencing free of any extra verdict enhancement is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment. It is statutory error under the remedial part of the Booker decision. The upshot of our four decisions is that the first two prongs of the four prong plain error test are met in all pre Booker sentencing cases.1 To that In United States v. (2) that is plain. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3373A25D317BE31E88256FBD005E542F/$file/9999030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Patel was the resident hotel manager of the Rice Motel in Stockton. Hayes was staying 2758 HAYES v. That she may have mentioned the leak to him again. Hayes was telling Patel that there was a problem with the bathroom sink in Room 15 and that he wanted Patel to come and fix it. Because Patel was occupied. Hayes and Patel were coming out of Patel's bathroom area. The next thing he recalled was being awakened by someone slapping him and saying something that he could not understand. He claimed that he struck back and thereafter realized it was Patel. As he was getting off the bed. Hayes testified that he thereafter tried to stop the manager from grabbing a butcher knife that was on top of the dresser. He then unwound two wire coat hangers and bound Patel's hands and feet while Patel was still alive. Hayes explained that he did not want to have to hurt Patel anymore and was afraid of what Patel might do if he got up. She noticed that James was standing at the side of the car. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116485.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> A version of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act which is no longer in effect. Probable cause is no longer a central issue in forfeiture proceedings. 484.00 in cash was the proceeds of. Or was otherwise connected to. The burden shifted to Stanford to establish by a preponderance of the evidence one of two affirmative defenses: either that the money was not the proceeds of illegal drug activity. Or that she was an innocent owner. Stanford herself was her only witness at trial. 484.00 in cash she was carrying was not connected to illegal drug activity. The court was not persuaded. 484.00 Stanford was carrying was substantially connected to an illegal drug transaction. The opinion also explained that Stanford had not thereafter satisfied her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2142.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sturm was on brief. Was on brief. The issue before us is whether the sentencing guidelines. We hold that the answer depends on certain factual determinations and the record is not clear enough as to these issues for us to resolve the dispute. That his criminal history score was no higher than one point. Found DiPina to have four criminal history points which put him in criminal history category III. He was therefore not eligible for the safety valve. If DiPina is correct as to both of the other dispositions. The relevant guidelines are hardly a model of clarity. Offenses committed prior to age eighteen are not immune from being counted under 4A1.1. Such youthful offenses are. (A) [A]dd 2 points under 4A1.1(b) for each adult or juvenile sentence to confinement of at least sixty days if the defendant was released from such confinement within five years of his commencement of the instant offense. 813 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that Section 4A1.2(a)(1) is clear and unambiguous on its face and does not cover </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1425.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Greenfield were on brief. Littman & Peppard was on brief. Lester Olsen was convicted of the first degree murder of Harold Fernandes and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. A ruling that was based on the investigating police officers' failure to disclose an audiotaped interview with the prosecution's chief witness. Olsen was released from prison on bail pending the new trial. Olsen pled nolo contendere to a charge of manslaughter and was convicted of that crime. Although the state judge questioned whether this sentence was sufficiently severe. Olsen was sentenced to the time he had already served for the original conviction. The balance of the ten to fifteen year manslaughter sentence was suspended. He was placed on probation for five years. His complaint was primarily focused on obtaining damages for his imprisonment. Evidence of injury arising from Olsen's incarceration was excluded. Evidence of other damages associated with his murder trial and conviction was permitted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/009004.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-5756.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DUARTE-ACERO (4/13/2000, NO. 98-5756) </A> Circuit Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal of a district court decision denying appellant's motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds. See United States v. That he was convicted in Colombia of the same conduct alleged in the instant indictment. The four men abducted two DEA agents (who were investigating drug trafficking between Colombia and the United States) from their hotel room and. 28 F.Supp.2d at 1363 64.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-5756.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DUARTE-ACERO (4/13/2000, NO. 98-5756) </A> Circuit Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal of a district court decision denying appellant's motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds. See United States v. That he was convicted in Colombia of the same conduct alleged in the instant indictment. The four men abducted two DEA agents (who were investigating drug trafficking between Colombia and the United States) from their hotel room and. 28 F.Supp.2d at 1363 64.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0970p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Philadelphia defendants have not contested the need for substantial and meaningful improvements. They entered into two consent decrees and stipulated revisions thereto in which they agreed to make massive improvements and agreed to have the district court supervise the steps they planned to implement those improvements. It is also not contested that Philadelphia did not meet the deadlines for some of the obligations it undertook in the consent decrees and stipulations. The district court entered the series of orders which are the subject of these appeals.[fn1] Before us in this opinion is the City of Philadelphia's appeal from the order of October 5. These appeals were consolidated for argument with three related appeals. The appeal from the injunction entered by the district court governing the occupancy and conditions of confinement of the City's newly constructed prison facility denominated the Alternative and Special Detention Central Unit (No. 93 2034) was remanded to the district court because the issues raised by the City on appeal had not been raised by it in the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C4927C066768174588256C050080FF25/$file/0156900.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs are leaders of IGP. Much of which is critical of the United States' financial and taxing policies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5226.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Orlando Reed appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the second superseding indictment because it was not signed by the grand jury foreperson and the foreperson's name does not appear on it. He also (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Dunlap knew Jones and Reed were career criminals in Tulsa. He was also aware Reed had a criminal history involving drugs. The envelope also had other characteristics Dunlap looked for when examining packages for evidence of criminal courier activity: the envelope was from a person to a person. Its shipping charge was paid with cash and it was sent priority overnight. Who is trained to detect marijuana. The envelope was from a Robert Jones. The recipient of the package is an Orlando Reed. Your Affiant states that the envelope was sent priority overnight and the shipping charge ($20.25) was paid with cash. Your Affiant states that the airbill was hand written from a person to a person. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/42AEDE6841B771188825703700817B64/$file/0236164.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Senior Circuit Judge: We must decide in this matter the novel question whether a Washington state prisoner may challenge the validity of his sentence retroactively on the ground that the trial court based its sentencing decision on facts that were not found to be true by a jury in violation of the constitutional principle subsequently announced by the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. We also hold that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was ineffectively represented by his trial counsel. Schardt was charged with one count of rape of a child in the first degree. Schardt had sexual intercourse with a child who was less than twelve years old from April 1. Code § 9A.44.073 provides: (1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty four months older than the victim. 2 (2) Rape of a child in the first degree is a class A felony. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-5254a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/02-3119a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0347n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> He truthfully noted that a misdemeanor charge of interfering with a police officer in Bloomfield Township was still pending against him. His application for admission to the state bar was not immediately processed. The district committee referral should be delayed until the pending proceeding is concluded. The request should be granted provided that a district committee report and recommendation does not issue until the criminal matter is concluded. The matter was scheduled for trial. The charge is dismissed. Bloomfield Hills District Judge Edward Avadenka was present. Lawrence was not present. Lawrence was found guilty of the charge of interfering with a township officer. Judge Avadenka explained the actual content of the plea negotiations to Armbrustmacher and stated that while he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0245p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We must determine who has the right to conduct a review for privilege of documents subject to a grand jury subpoena directed to a third party who possesses the documents but has not yet produced them to the government: the targets of the investigation whose rights of privilege are potentially implicated. We will address them together. 1 Nos. 05 2274/2275 In re Grand Jury Subpoenas 04 124 03 and 04 124 05 Page 2 These cases arise from events leading up to the 2003 bankruptcy filing of Venture Holdings LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042542p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiffs were arrested for disorderly conduct on the 2 campus of Indiana University of Pennsylvania. At issue in this First Amendment suit is whether the arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Also at issue is whether resolution of a criminal charge under Pennsylvania's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/004342.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inasmuch as we agree that the waiver colloquy was not sufficient to insure a proper waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We will reverse and remand for a new trial. FBI agents received a tip from a confidential informant that Larry Brown and Walter Baynes were planning to rob a bank the next day. That robbery was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ1NDMtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4543-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> BACKGROUND Jaeggi was the Senior Vice President of Finance and the Chief Financial Officer of Symbol Technologies. The two schemes are alleged to have involved conspiracy and substantive offenses of securities fraud. The government claimed these assets were proceeds of Jaeggi's illegal activity and would be forfeitable upon his conviction. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Jaeggi moved to vacate or modify the restraining order. That it was not authorized by Section 2461(c). DISCUSSION Whether Section 2461(c) authorizes pretrial restraint of putative forfeitable property is a legal issue that we review de novo. a) United States v. If that text is unambiguous. 92 (2d Cir. 2003). 2461(c) provides that If a forfeiture of property is authorized in connection with a violation of an Act of Congress. Any person is charged in an indictment or information with such violation but no specific statutory provision is made for criminal forfeiture upon conviction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/02-3067a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on the brief for appellants. With her on the brief was Robert A. Defendants Rafael Mejia and Homes Valencia Rios were convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine with the knowledge and intent that it would be unlawfully imported into the United States. Mejia was sentenced to 400 months in prison and Rios to 324 months. On Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. 1 3 October 3. Copies of the warrants were provided to Panamanian law enforcement officials. DEA Special Agents Michael Chavarria and Joseph Evans then arrested Mejia and Rios and transported them Section 959(c) further provides: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3DC0E87BDDA3BAB88256EB300548E33/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0111p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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 $570. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B453259F6584AF288256CF00075C9DE/$file/0130151.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> William Dennis Danielson was convicted of illegally selling and transporting in interstate commerce a deer taken without a state issued tag in violation of the Lacey Act. While Danielson was represented by coun 4186 UNITED STATES v. None of this material was produced to Danielson or his counsel during pretrial discovery. The government's interference with Danielson's attorneyclient relationship was neither accidental nor unavoidable. Was rather the result of deliberate and affirmative acts. We therefore hold that if there was prejudice there was a violation of the Sixth Amendment under Weatherford v. Danielson and five co defendants were indicted in Oregon district court for violating the Lacey Act. Assistant United States Attorney ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313382.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Salman is a Syrian citizen who entered the United States on an F 1 student visa to study at Brevard County Community College.1 Salman pursued his studies until January 1990. Salman was indicted for five counts of possession of firearms. Maintaining that he was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/00-14499.opn.html">NELSON V. ALABAMA ATTORNEY GEN. (6/3/2002, NO. 00-14499) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/043669P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Oraina Fellows were indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base between November 1. Cooley was sentenced to life in prison and Shepherd. Skannell were each sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment. Shepherd was indicted and referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-11432.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ (8/10/2001, NO. 00-11432) </A> The government contends that the district court's denial of Potes Ramirez's motion should be affirmed because (1) Potes Ramirez's notice of appeal from the district court's denial of his motion was untimely. Potes Ramirez argues that his notice of appeal was timely and that the district court should have exercised its equitable jurisdiction over his motion. Potes Ramirez was arrested by United States Customs officials and charged with importation of cocaine. Potes Ramirez pled guilty and was sentenced to 108 months in prison. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-11432.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ (8/10/2001, NO. 00-11432) </A> The government contends that the district court's denial of Potes Ramirez's motion should be affirmed because (1) Potes Ramirez's notice of appeal from the district court's denial of his motion was untimely. Potes Ramirez argues that his notice of appeal was timely and that the district court should have exercised its equitable jurisdiction over his motion. Potes Ramirez was arrested by United States Customs officials and charged with importation of cocaine. Potes Ramirez pled guilty and was sentenced to 108 months in prison. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/00-14499.opn.html">NELSON V. ALABAMA ATTORNEY GEN. (6/3/2002, NO. 00-14499) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C84F396001F211588256F080056BF3B/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> This case is reported as Leavitt v. We will put page references to the published opinion in parenthesis. 1 LEAVITT v. As is well known by now. The Supreme Court determined that a capital sentencing scheme wherein the judge decides aggravating facts without a jury is unconstitutional. Leavitt asserts that Ring is retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review. Substitute the following in its place: CONCLUSION Leavitt is not entitled to habeas corpus relief as far as his conviction and the sentencing issues disposed of in this opinion are concerned. He is entitled to have the district court consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his second sentencing hearing. Arave's petition for rehearing is DENIED. Leavitt's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is also DENIED. Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/014CFA4EE9890ACB88256D280073FE48/$file/0130151.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> 2003 is amended as follows: The following two sentences. Are deleted: Any statements so gathered must be excluded from the government's case in chief. Although the government is permitted to use them for impeachment purposes. Provided the statements were voluntary. They are replaced with the following: Any statements so gathered must be excluded from the government's case in chief. Although </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1020.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for the United States. A sentencing hearing was conducted and sentence was imposed on December 17. Found that Roberts was in criminal history category II. Which is midway in the guideline range of 12 to 18 months. A second point was assigned because in 1986. Both charges were continued by the state court without a finding. The second criminal history point was sufficient to push Roberts into category II. Deferred prosecution) is not counted. In a judicial proceeding is counted as a sentence under 4A1.1(c) even if a conviction is not formally entered. Except that diversion from juvenile court is not counted. The issue is how this provision applies to the disposition of the charges against Roberts in 1986 by a continuance based on admission to sufficient facts to sustain a finding of guilt. Says that there was no finding or admission of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953004.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Senior Circuit Judge: Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034490p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Alito was on the panel for this case but was elevated to the United States Supreme Court on January 30. This opinion is filed by quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Jointly and This case was tried together with United States v. Gregg was sentenced to six months in prison and three years of supervised release. Fallon was sentenced to 12 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $55. The facts underlying the orders should have been submitted to a jury and established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether orders of restitution are a criminal penalty. Will be addressed in separate opinions. 6 2 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313639op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court with instructions to reconsider our panel decision. We have determined that. I. Alvin Smith was convicted of one count of producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)1 and one count of possessing child pornography Section 2251(a) provides: Any person who employs. Shall be punished . . . if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed. If that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed. 2 and was sentenced to a total of 188 months in prison and 60 months of supervised release. The physical evidence used against Smith was discovered pursuant to a search warrant executed at Smith's mother's home in Tampa. Smith was incarcerated and the target of the investigation was his brother. Who lived at the residence and was suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. The focus of the warrant was drugs and drug paraphernalia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/001212.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. Introduction We are asked to determine whether the appellant. Is entitled to resentencing because the District Court failed to observe the r equirement of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(C). Accordingly will vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for resentencing. We will not reach the third issue raised on appeal. Thus we do not have jurisdiction to review this aspect of Adams' sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0349p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sean Michael Flaim was a third year medical student attending the Medical College of Ohio. He was arrested and convicted of a felony drug crime. Page 2 Medical College of Ohio's procedural approach was consistent with the bare minimum requirements of due process. I. Flaim was arrested by Toledo police in October 2001 while at his off campus apartment. Flaim was a third year medical student. He was charged with Aggravated Possession of Drugs (Ecstasy). Was sentenced to two years of unsupervised probation. Medical College of Ohio notified Flaim by letter that he was suspended </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> In this case we are asked to decide when a vacated criminal conviction remains a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></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 </A> (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="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1678p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was abducted. The members of the community were unaware of the accused murderer's history. Forty nine states had adopted sex offender registration laws and thirty two states maintained some form of community notification program. 6 We have before us challenges to the constitutionality of the notification requirements of New Jersey's Megan's Law based on the Ex Post Facto. The issues before us are difficult but relatively narrow. We are not called upon to decide whether Megan's Law can constitutionally be applied to one who has committed one of the designated sex crimes after its enactment. Is it our responsibility to determine whether the policy judgments reflected in Megan's Law are prudent ones. Public reaction to Megan's murder was intense. The Law and Public Safety Committee held a hearing upon pending legislation that pre dated Megan's Law and would have required victim notification on the release of offenders. Registration and community notification bills identical to their General Assembly counterparts were introduced in the Senate on September 12. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-7005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-5215.htm">02-5215 -- U.S. V. MONTGOMERY -- 10/27/2003 </A> Montgomery sought to withdraw his guilty plea and have the trial judge disqualified. Arguing that the trial judge should have disqualified himself. Montgomery and three other individuals were indicted for the tax fraud scheme. Rick Couch was appointed as Montgomery's attorney. The district court judge stated: I have known Mr. I have the highest regard for him and . . . [W]hat are we to do with a defendant who will prolong proceedings by making allegations that [no one] believes to be true? The district court stated that it did not credit Montgomery's accusation concerning Couch. The court specifically asked Montgomery if the delay in sentencing was acceptable and Montgomery responded. No written order requiring the appointment of new counsel was docketed until June 21. Montgomery's new counsel was appointed four days later. After the appointment of new counsel. Sentencing was set for December 12. The government presented the testimony of an Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1798.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Kimberly Homan and Sheketoff & Homan were on briefs for Raymond J. Sultan with whom Rankin & Sultan was on brief for Robert F. Were on briefs for the United States. He was sentenced by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to a prison term of 97 months. The government appeals from the district court's determination that the relevant conduct for sentencing purposes in this RICO case is limited to just the predicate Travel Act violations charged against Patriarca and conduct relating directly to those charged predicates. It was further alleged that members of the Patriarca Family were required to obey their superiors and commit criminal acts at their direction. Members of the Patriarca Family were allegedlyrequiredto sharetheirillegalprofitswiththeirsuperiors. 4 The indictment alleged that the Patriarca Family was in the business of extortion. The predicate racketeering acts in which Patriarca was personally named were five violations of (and conspiracy to violate) the Travel Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/014484p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002324A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The facts underlying this dispute are as follows. At the center of this case is Rule 11(c)(1)(A). Or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. The requirements of the rule are straightforward: The party seeking sanctions must serve the Rule 11 motion on the opposing party at least twenty one days before filing the motion with the district court. Sanctions may be sought only if the challenged pleading is not withdrawn or corrected within twenty one days after service of the motion. Motions have been disallowed as untimely when filed after a point in the litigation when the lawyer sought to be sanctioned lacked an opportunity to correct or withdraw the challenged submission. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2667.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellee. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0872p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is an appeal from a final judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 30. Was convicted of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. He contends that he is entitled to a new trial because: (1) the district court failed to inquire properly into whether premature jury deliberations prejudiced him. (2) the district court's calculation of the loss under the fraud guideline is not supported by the record. Bertoli urges that if the case is remanded. We will affirm the judgment of conviction but we will vacate the sentence. Therefore we will remand the matter to the district court for resentencing in accordance with this Opinion. Much of the substantive conduct described at the trial is not generally relevant to this appeal. Certain evidence is evidence of conduct underlying Counts One and Two. Bertoli and his co conspirators were charged with unlawfully manipulating the prices of certain stocks. Who was an analyst at the firm of Wood Gundy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/97-6898.man.html">CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898) </A> Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/02-3015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appointed 3 by the court for Samuel Carson at the time the brief was filed. Were on the joint brief. Assistant United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. I. Facts This case is a story of mayhem and disorder in and around the 200 block of K Street. Underlying the violence was appellants' organized and massive business of selling drugs. Some appellants also were convicted for numerous attempted murders. All appellants were convicted for a racketeering conspiracy. Appellant William Sweeney was incarcerated when some of these purchases took place. Crucial to the government's case was testimony from former associates of appellants and nearby residents testimony that was undoubtedly difficult to obtain given evidence. That some of the appellants have a history of murdering or attempting to murder potential witnesses against them. Not every detail is known about appellants' lengthy pattern of lawlessness that preceded their indictment in 1998. Our summary is by no means 5 exhaustive of all facts underlying that activity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053093P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. In 1993 South Dakota enacted a law providing that no abortion can be performed without the patient's voluntary and informed consent unless it is impossible to obtain such consent due to a medical emergency. The patient's consent will be informed only if certain information has been given to her at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure. The information required by the 1993 law includes the name of the physician who will perform the abortion. The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus she is carrying. The patient must also have been told that medical assistance benefits may be available. All of whom were granted leave to intervene after this appeal was filed. 22 1 fetuses at various gestational ages. A provider's failure to comply with the state's informed consent requirements is a class 2 misdemeanor. In 2005 South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 (the Act) which is the subject of this action. The disclosures required under the new law are contained in § 7 of the Act. The doctor's written statement provided 2 hours before an abortion must inform the patient: (b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8C710FCE58BC79E88256EBA005A8447/$file/0250226.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Ross was convicted of drug trafficking offenses in 1996. We affirm the district court's denial of his motions because he was not prejudiced by the government's behavior. Including its failure to disclose that a key informant was rewarded with illegally obtained permanent resident status. ROSS FACTS Ross was arrested along with codefendants Leroy Brown and Curtis James in a reverse drug sting on March 2. 000 in cash to undercover Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Pedro Pena and were in turn allowed to take possession of a Chevy Blazer containing 100 kilograms of cocaine. Appearing with Agent Pena at the deal was undercover informant Oscar Danilo Blandon. Which would have revealed that Tellez violated the law in processing Blandon's file. Ross was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). The Justice Department's Inspector General issued a public report on his investigation into allegations that the CIA was protecting the drug trafficking activities of Nicaraguan Contra rebels in the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1567p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We are here asked to decide whether a victim of a privately executed wiretap can successfully move to quash a subpoena duces tecum directing the perpetrator of the wiretap to convey recordings of unlawfully intercepted communications to a grand jury. We will reverse the district court and remand with orders that the subpoena duces tecum be quashed. We will not refer to the parties by their proper names. We will also limit our recitation of the facts to the minimum necessary to explain and resolve the issues presented. The relevant facts are undisputed. Appellant intervenor John Doe 1 is the target of a federal grand jury investigation (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3173.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> (2) that we should reverse his convictions related to witness intimidation because the district court should have suppressed certain email evidence due to the government's misconduct and alleged violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (3) that his 78 month sentence is unreasonable. That the district court was within its discretion to admit the email evidence. Bishop's sentence is reasonable. Acting suspiciously at a gas station that was often used for drug transactions. Which was parked at the gas station. That is a Hi Point 9 mm pistol. While court was in recess for the day. Bishop had previously been convicted of at least one felony that was classified as a crime of violence. The PSR determined that the range for imprisonment was 51 to <hr> 63 months. His rape conviction was reversed due to the discovery of exculpatory DNA. He was released from prison. Bishop would have been released in 1995 if he had not been convicted of the rape. Bishop should have been released in 1995. For the rape conviction that was overturned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/97-6898.man.html">CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898) </A> Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> It is improper for this Court to do as the majority has done here and consider his defaulted arguments on appeal. 2) failure to consider his objection to the amount of drugs for which he was responsible. 3) failure to consider his objection to his criminal history category and the determination that he was a criminal history category V rather than a IV. REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. his counsel had been ineffective in failing to object to the presentence report's determination that he was an armed career offender. Was denied relief on the remaining claims. We will not review on appeal claims presented in § 2255 habeas proceedings that were not presented previously on direct appeal. 777 (6th Cir. 1987) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTAxODItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0182-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The police came to believe that the same person was involved in each of the crimes. The robberies were labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0937p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> He argues: (1) that the district court should have bifurcated the elements of the offense with which he was charged. If this bifurcation was denied. The district court should have prevented the jury from learning that the prior felony conviction alleged in the indictment was for burglary. (3) that the district court should have excluded evidence that his possession of the firearm occurred during an aborted drug transaction. I. Jacobs was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. If severance was not granted. The court should nevertheless prevent the jury from learning that the prior conviction charged in the indictment was for burglary. The defense argued that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/99-3151a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Eric W. With him on the brief was Donald C. Its request for interest as of the date of payment was denied by the district court. Sun Diamond is entitled to recover constructive interest on the principal amount of the fine. The government responds that the criminal fine was required by statute to be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund. Sun Diamond's claim for interest is barred by sovereign immunity. Because Sun Diamond's contention that its criminal fine was required to be deposited in an interest bearing account is meritless. We do not reach the contention that it was entitled to recover constructive interest and. The distinc tion between an individual seeking bond pending appeal and 1 Sun Growers of California was formerly known as Sun Diamond Growers of California. Because the company's former name was used throughout the underlying litigation. The district court ruled that the fine was correctly deposited in the Crime Victims Fund. Sun Diamond's contention that it is entitled to interest on the original fine2 is two fold. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/993169P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Moss argues his 360 month sentence for drug law violations was imposed in violation of the rule announced in Apprendi v. Because drug quantity was not The Honorable William G. Because we conclude Moss is foreclosed from collaterally attacking his sentence based on Apprendi. I. Moss was convicted in September 1996 of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Moss was responsible for 1. Moss's conviction and sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. Is an element of the offense. He argues that after Jones the government was required to charge reckless endangerment in the indictment and prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he created a substantial risk of death or injury. Shortly after the opening brief was filed. Our circuit subsequently held in the context of § 841's quantitydependent sentencing scheme that Apprendi prohibits the government from seeking to impose a sentence in excess of § 841(b)(1)(C)'s 20 year maximum sentence unless drug quantity is both alleged in the indictment and found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9733.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We refer to Respondents collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0NDgtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5448-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The petitioner argues that (1) he is being incarcerated in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination. Circuit Judge: It has been said that a civil contemnor who is incarcerated to compel compliance with a court order holds the key to his prison cell: Where defiance leads to the contemnor's In this case. Compliance is his salvation. petitioner appellant Martin A. At which the district court permitted Armstrong to either produce the missing records and assets or demonstrate that he is incapable of doing so. Armstrong was arrested on a complaint charging him with securities fraud. The investments were made on the understanding that Armstrong would invest in United States securities on behalf of the Japanese investors while hedging against any exchange rate risk inherent in the conversion between yen and dollars. Armstrong schemed with officers of Republic New York Securities Corporation to create fraudulent account statements and account value confirmations that were presented to the Japanese investors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/014042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellant is a target of a grand jury investigation in the District of New Jersey. The parties entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order which was approved by the District Court in March 1999. The parties agreed that the protective order was designed to avoid public disclosure of sensitive personal and corporate financial information. After Doe added defendants to his case with whom there was no diversity of citizenship. The case was remanded to the New Jersey Superior Court in August 1999. Other discovery were taken of Doe and several of his associates. Is still ongoing in state court and currently awaits trial. As discovery was ongoing in the civil case. Our statement of facts is necessarily brief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1F4FC327714C941788256E8C005B01E0/$file/0230035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: 5750 UNITED STATES v. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. We reject Phillips' remaining claim: that the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Fred Burr Creek (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1985.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Rachel Brill with whom Jose Fernando Irizarry was on brief for appellant Diaz Perez. Were on brief for appellee. D az P rez argues that she is entitled to a new trial because the government violated Fed. De la Cruz Paulino argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Chita told the agents that the Puerto Rican contact was known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1291p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> After he was released. After summary proceedings in which no evidence was heard and virtually no factual record developed. These cross appeals present numerous questions (some of which are quite difficult): (1) Do the registration and notification provisions of Megan's Law constitute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C0E50B1A3C0573988256E2800824F45/$file/0230035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We reject Phillips' remaining claim: that the district court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Fred Burr Creek (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1118.html">THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. </A> Argued for plaintiff appellant. With him on the brief were John F. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Andra Barmash Greene. Communications Industry Association. With him on the brief was Matthew Schruers.<o:p></o:p> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0392n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Defendant Appellant Bruce Edward Lawson was convicted of being a felon in possession of a weapon and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. Who she believed was at the Defendant's trailer on Bromley Drive in Cleveland. Detective Coultry knew that the Defendant was a convicted felon who was disqualified from possessing a firearm. The officers were able to solve eighty two home burglaries that had occurred in the Bradley County area. That have date and time stamps indicating that they were taken prior to the time that Coultry obtained the warrant. Detective Coultry testified that the time stamp on the camera was incorrect. Lawson search warrant was overly broad on its face. (4) the affidavit in support of the warrant to search the Defendant's trailer was defective. Defendant Lawson subsequently pleaded guilty and was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. This court will uphold the factual findings of the district court unless clearly erroneous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-8545.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> We hold that the district court did not err in failing to appoint an independent prosecutor in light of the appellant's waiver of the right to have an independent prosecutor appointed. <CENTER>I. Appellant Russell Reed is an owner of Brand. This court will not address an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Is at the discretion of the appellate court. See Lattimore v. The district court's rulings on law are subject to de novo review. United States v. ISSUES</CENTER> The issues we discuss are whether the district court violated Reed's procedural due process and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 42(b) in: (1) failing to appoint an independent prosecutor to prosecute the criminal contempt proceedings. the Supreme Court held that counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed as prosecutor in a contempt action alleging a violation of that order. 481 U.S. 787. 107 S.Ct. 2124. Young further held that a district court's appointment of counsel for an interested party as a contempt prosecutor is not subject to a harmless error analysis. 481 U.S. at 810. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF99B9C3C8F798268825729C007D1A3D/$file/0516650.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is a form of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4161.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <hr> HOLMES. G. Cook is married to D. After concluding <hr> that plaintiffs have forfeited any challenge to the constitutionality of Utah's civil prohibition of polygamous marriages. That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/943609P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was convicted of recklessly causing the death of her child. Persons act recklessly when they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-8545.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> We hold that the district court did not err in failing to appoint an independent prosecutor in light of the appellant's waiver of the right to have an independent prosecutor appointed. <CENTER>I. Appellant Russell Reed is an owner of Brand. This court will not address an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Is at the discretion of the appellate court. See Lattimore v. The district court's rulings on law are subject to de novo review. United States v. ISSUES</CENTER> The issues we discuss are whether the district court violated Reed's procedural due process and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 42(b) in: (1) failing to appoint an independent prosecutor to prosecute the criminal contempt proceedings. the Supreme Court held that counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed as prosecutor in a contempt action alleging a violation of that order. 481 U.S. 787. 107 S.Ct. 2124. Young further held that a district court's appointment of counsel for an interested party as a contempt prosecutor is not subject to a harmless error analysis. 481 U.S. at 810. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B8A1C95D4198B1488256E4A00815902/$file/9950041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> That naturalization ceremony was the culmination of a 16 year struggle between Appellees and the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTU3ODItY3IgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-5782-cr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was indicted on August 4. By a grand jury in the Southern District of New York.1 Giffen is the Chairman of the Board. The changes are not relevant to this 2 appeal. These deposits were bribes. The indictment alleges that funds in these accounts were used to pay personal expenses of Kazakh officials and their families. The theory of the fraud allegations is that the money used to bribe the Kazakh officials belonged to Kazakhstan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5029.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The United States argues that the lack of notice was harmless error. The PSR proposed the addition of eight levels under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because defendant was previously convicted of two aggravated felony offenses. Which was after the Supreme Court decided United States v. The district court stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-1437.htm">97-1437 -- JURADO-GUTIERREZ V. GREENE -- 08/19/1999 </A> Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-3134.htm">96-3134 -- U.S. V. HINES -- 01/16/1998 </A> Arkansas was expunged and thus should not have been counted as a prior felony conviction increasing the applicable base offense level<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AB40E242D93895A88256F7700573155/$file/0217148.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs was Terence J. Jones seeks damages based on violations of his constitutional rights while he was confined in jail as a civil detainee. Was awaiting proceedings under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As this is an appeal from summary judgment. Because Jones is pro se. Where such contentions are based on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence. Where Jones attested under penalty of perjury that the contents of the motions or pleadings are true and correct. 460 n.10 (9th Cir. 1995) (pleading counts as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0864p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We are confronted in this case with a tension between two issues of critical constitutional concern: the need to protect the confidentiality of jurors' deliberations while. Guaranteeing the right of the press and the public to have access to court proceedings. We will. We will reverse in part and affirm in part the restrictions imposed by the district court on the conduct of juror interviews. We find that the sealing of the transcript was accomplished prematurely. It was done without adequate notice. We further find that the restrictions imposed on the use of juror information at the time of the unsealing were not supported by an actual or potential threat either of juror harassment or of invasion of the deliberative process as it was taking place. Nor do we intend to suggest that the restrictions which we find to have been improperly imposed here may not be permissible in some future case. There are. Is directly controlling. That the presumptive right of access applied to the voir dire proceedings as they were recorded in the trial transcript.[fn1] Applying the requirement that detailed findings of the need for restrictions be made before any restriction is imposed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0047p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because Cooper was indicted pursuant to statutes that are meant to protect public health and safety. The third requirement for Younger abstention is that there be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTU3ODItY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5782-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was indicted on August 4. By a grand jury in the Southern District of New York.1 Giffen is the Chairman of the Board. The changes are not relevant to this 2 appeal. These deposits were bribes. The indictment alleges that funds in these accounts were used to pay personal expenses of Kazakh officials and their families. The theory of the fraud allegations is that the money used to bribe the Kazakh officials belonged to Kazakhstan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312961.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Determined that his criminal history category was VI rather than V. Marseille also argues that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence based on three prior felony convictions that were not charged in the indictment. The government sought to enhance Marseille's sentence for possessing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) on the basis of his four previous convictions.2 Based on the district court's determination that Marseille is a career offender under USSG § Citations to the Guidelines. Are to the 2002 version. Which is the version that was in effect at the time of Marseille's sentencing. Marseille was previously convicted of (1) attempted murder and carrying a concealed firearm. The sentences are running concurrently. He told the CI that he could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/021325p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Polishan was arraigned shortly thereafter. Defense counsel had access to the room in the federal building where the file was located and permission to bring in a photocopier. Discovery was completed on December 15. Concluding that Polishan was given adequate opportunities to conduct discovery. B. Trial While Polishan's bench trial was initially scheduled for January 27. Thereafter Polishan was sentenced to nine years imprisonment. We have jurisdiction over this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2. The District Court also concluded that the Magistrate Judge's holdings were not clearly erroneous. The statute mandates a specific time within which objections are to be filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (authorizing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge: Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36D3991E0771F37D88256CE1005F60E7/$file/0235530.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which is charged with evaluating and treating mentally incapacitated defendants. OSH argues that it is the county jails' responsibility to maintain and treat incapacitated defendants until OSH has an open bed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A mentally incapacitated criminal defendant who was detained in a county jail while awaiting transfer to OSH. Plaintiff Oregon Advocacy Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct96/95-9059.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re E.I. That were tried before the district court in 1993. The primary issue at trial was whether Benlate 50 DF a fungicide manufactured by DuPont and sold to the plaintiffs for use at their nurseries was contaminated with highly toxic herbicides known as sulfonylureas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-6004.htm">98-6004 -- MOORE V. GIBSON -- 09/28/1999 </A> Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and kidnaping for the abduction and murder of twelve year old Jenipher Gilbert. He is entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing on his allegations that police planted evidence against him. Atrocious or cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310513.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is a Florida prisoner on death row. Its history is quite complicated. Who was married to Charles von Maxcy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-3163a.html">USA V. STEWART GARY </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge: Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct96/95-9059.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re E.I. That were tried before the district court in 1993. The primary issue at trial was whether Benlate 50 DF a fungicide manufactured by DuPont and sold to the plaintiffs for use at their nurseries was contaminated with highly toxic herbicides known as sulfonylureas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/022364p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing all of the claims asserted in the pro se complaint filed by Samuel T. Poole's notice of appeal was not filed on time. Poole claims is his son. We are required to consider whether we have appellate jurisdiction. The timeliness of an appeal is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite. Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure generally requires a notice of appeal to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A719A508F0B7B0BE88256C4F00580A1C/$file/9930165.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> McGuire and Cherlyn Petersen were members of a group known as the Montana Freemen. They were convicted of bank fraud for participating in a scheme that involved printing bogus checks on a home computer and trying to exchange them for real currency. Petersen asserts that wiretapping conducted by the FBI during its investigation violated the federal wiretap statute because wiretapping was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0009p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Petitioner is a gainfully employed legal immigrant in her early twenties who currently studies psychology at Wayne State University in Detroit. The agency would have processed her application before Petitioner's eighteenth birthday and she would now in all likelihood be an American citizen. Petitioner was never convicted of any crime. Her parents are citizens. Her siblings are citizens. The INS had the right under section 322(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/004141.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> It is also one of first impression in this Circuit. The issue is whether the debt to a State of a bond surety for a defendant who fails to appear is dischargeable in the surety's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. We decide the question here only in the context of the case before us: The bond surety is a relative of the non appearing defendant. We will reverse the District Court's decision. Was charged in Philadelphia. Bail was set at $1 million. Are jointly and severally bound to pay the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the sum of ONE MILLION dollars ($1. WE are bound by the CONDITIONS of this bond as shown on both sides of this form. Then this bond is to be void. It is not clear why the court did not enter a judgment in the amount of $900. Is not before this Court and we do not address it. 4 You may reduce your financial responsibility by producing the defendant forthwith and filing a petition with the Clerk of Quarter Sessions to vacate. When David was released on bond. Such debt was not in fact dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2705.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellants Hon. Navas D'Acosta were on brief for appellants David Noriega Rodrí. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/004141.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> It is also one of first impression in this Circuit. The issue is whether the debt to a State of a bond surety for a defendant who fails to appear is dischargeable in the surety's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. We decide the question here only in the context of the case before us: The bond surety is a relative of the non appearing defendant. We will reverse the District Court's decision. Was charged in Philadelphia. Bail was set at $1 million. Are jointly and severally bound to pay the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the sum of ONE MILLION dollars ($1. WE are bound by the CONDITIONS of this bond as shown on both sides of this form. Then this bond is to be void. It is not clear why the court did not enter a judgment in the amount of $900. Is not before this Court and we do not address it. 4 You may reduce your financial responsibility by producing the defendant forthwith and filing a petition with the Clerk of Quarter Sessions to vacate. When David was released on bond. Such debt was not in fact dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F4EB9AF81D4094688256BB1006CE207/$file/9930285.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-1089.htm">99-1089 -- U.S. V. AKERS -- 06/12/2000 </A> Akers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEA2D7F81F74610E88256CCD006116F2/$file/0070724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is hereby amended to replace the line TROTT. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/415240927EA7598F88256CCC005B6A86/$file/0070724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a2014p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are asked to determine whether the Victim and Witness Protection Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF5228AB7E2A28B288256B450002DA75/$file/9930285.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972192.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Employees of the United States Department of Justice were subpoenaed to testify in a state criminal prosecution in direct contravention of DOJ regulations. His purpose was to compel their testimony at trial and to compel production by the Government of his Confidential Informant file in order to facilitate preparation of his defense to state narcotics charges. I. Appellees Andrea Smith and Gregory Welsh are Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Maryland. Appellee Larry Hornstein is a special Agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8DF08034934F6FED88257258000C4D22/$file/0550871.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Assistant United States Attorney were on the brief. Argued the cause for the defendant appellant and was on the brief. After finding that Silva was voluntarily intoxicated and might endanger the public if released sooner. In order to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1263a.htm">99-1263A -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000 </A> The section should read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1259p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Commonwealth contends that Yohn is not entitled to habeas relief because no constitutional error occurred when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania became involved in a trial court ruling on the admissibility of evidence. We will affirm the order of the district court granting the writ of habeas corpus. We will vacate the order of the district court to the extent that it directs that the wiretap evidence be excluded and leave that ruling to the state court upon retrial. I. The relevant facts are not disputed. Andrew Kollar was shot and killed by a single shotgun blast outside his home in Old Zionsville. Lynn was recruited to gain entry into Kollar's house under the guise of car trouble. Lynn was to restrain Kollar at gunpoint while Southerland and Yohn entered the house and searched for money. Was shot in the back. The deal was conditioned upon the accuracy of Southerland's role in the incident as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-2337.htm">00-2337 -- U.S. V. RODRIGUEZ-AGUIRRE -- 09/05/2001 </A> The property in question was allegedly seized in 1992 pursuant to several warrants executed on homes and business properties owned by Appellants. While many of the seized items were forfeited by the United States in valid civil forfeiture actions. Appellants allege that approximately 127 of the seized items were never properly forfeited and thus should be returned to Appellants. Appellants' objections to the magistrate's recommendations were rejected by the district court when dismissing Appellants' motion. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Burch makes the following contentions: (1) that the sentencing provisions of Maryland's death penalty statute are unconstitutional. These claims are without merit. Who was alive when found on a couch with blood splattered over her. Was hospitalized and died eight days after being attacked by Burch. Of which eleven were stab wounds from the blade of a pair of scissors. CORCORAN 3 There was overwhelming evidence in Burch's state court trial linking him to the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Traces of the victims' blood were found on clothing in Burch's home. Burch was indicted on April 21. Burch was found guilty on all counts except voluntary manslaughter. The same jury was instructed on the sentencing issues. The jury was provided with a form captioned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051728p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> If the procedural requirements for sentencing defendants that this court established are so inflexible that we cannot affirm any sentence when the district court fails to articulate its analysis in precisely the terms of those requirements. Then we must vacate the sentence imposed in this case no matter how reasonable we believe it is. We will not vacate the sentence imposed by the District Court. Write to dispel any erroneous impression that we have relaxed those requirements. I. Defendant Donald James King appeals his sentence of seventy two months imprisonment that was imposed by the District Court following his plea of guilty to one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. King claims that the sentence is unreasonable and in violation of United States v. Because the District Court did not follow proper procedure for imposing a sentence in excess of the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines (3037 months imprisonment).1 We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 328 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that an unreasonable sentence is imposed in violation of the law). 2 1 The events giving rise to this criminal prosecution took place during the years 1998 and 1999. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-4062.htm">97-4062 -- U.S. V. GALLARDO-MENDEZ -- 07/28/1998 </A> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></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) </A> 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. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1032.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051822P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Michael Meyer sought and was granted an The Honorable Theodore McMillian died on January 18. This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Because we conclude that a district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record where the motion to expunge is based solely on equitable considerations. Meyer stated in an affidavit that he was employed in the securities industry by an institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/93-3372.html">UNITED STATES V. WACKER </A> 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-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0270p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Union Township amended the resolution to eliminate the provisions that the district court concluded were likely to be held unconstitutional. Union Township also eliminated other provisions that were not found to be suspect by the district court. A divided panel of this court ruled in favor of Deja Vu on the following two points: (1) that the resolution was an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected First Amendment expression because it failed to provide for prompt judicial review of an adverse licensing decision. (2) that the resolution's more restrictive closing times for adult cabarets without liquor licenses as compared to those with liquor licenses was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We granted a rehearing en banc to reconsider whether the resolution is consonant with both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The resolution was enacted pursuant to the authority granted to Union Township by Ohio Revised Code § 503.51 59 for the purpose of protecting the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/023380P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who was one of his The Honorable Mark W. United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 1 drug suppliers and who was also romantically involved with his sister. While Mingo Flores was riding in a car. Huerta was taken to the hospital and survived. Flores was 17 years old at the time of the attack. They obtained a search warrant for the apartment where he was living. A state charge of attempted murder was dropped when Flores agreed that he would plead guilty to a reduced charge of terrorism after his federal sentencing. Determined that he was in criminal history category IV. The court stated that even though he was only 18 years old at the time of sentencing. Was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/995051.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The calculation of his sentence.1 We will affirm his conviction and sentence in all aspects. An understanding of the facts of the case is a necessary foundation for a discussion of the issues he raises. We have jurisdiction over Helbling's appeal over his conviction under 28 U.S.C. We have considered both his counseled and pro se submissions. We have denied Helbling's motions to file further supplemental briefs and appendices. 2 embezzlement of employee pension plan funds from an ERISA covered plan (18 U.S.C. The mail fraud counts were dismissed during trial.2 The jury convicted Helbling of twenty seven of the remaining twenty nine counts. Helbling filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis that the indictment was not timely. Helbling argued to the District Court that the waiver was invalid because he had been coerced into signing it by fraud and misconduct. That the government witnesses were lying. The witnesses explained that Helbling was the president. The plan was funded exclusively by Micro Products. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/May1994/94a0695p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Do so under circumstances in which they could have a good faith expectation that the defendant would be able to raise these federal objections in state collateral review proceedings. The issue we address is whether the rule of Fay v. George Lee Reynolds was tried for felony murder. His alleged role in the crimes was to drive his two codefendants to and from the scene of the murder and robbery. A hearing was held to determine their admissibility. Reynolds was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Independent of the transcript they were supplied. He might have conducted Reynolds' trial and/or direct appeal as he did. Offered three reconstructive hypotheses as to why he might not have moved for a mistrial. The first hypothesis was that he did not want a mistrial because it would give the prosecution a second opportunity to proffer the confessions after having marshalled stronger evidence to support their admissibility. The second was that a motion for a mistrial might have prompted the prosecutor to ask for a recess and rethink his decision to withdraw the confessions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/25699E27B74B8E1588256E45005E34E8/$file/0110686.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have jurisdiction over their timely appeals under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294 (2000). We vacate Alvarez's conviction and remand his case to the district court with instructions to review the probation files of three cooperating witnesses to determine whether they contain information that should have been disclosed to the defense. The cocaine was smuggled into the United States through a 200foot long tunnel linking a mobile home in Naco. The investigation into the conspiracy commenced after 5.6 tons of cocaine were seized at a Tucson warehouse in December of 1996. Six indictments were filed charging 50 defendants with drug trafficking violations. It further alleged that Appellant Valenzuela was paid in excess of $100. Alvarez and Valenzuela were tried separately. Alvarez was convicted by a jury of Count 4 of the sixth superseding indictment. That the weight of drugs attributable to Alvarez was one ton. Alvarez was sentenced to 188 months' imprisonment and 60 months' supervised release. Valenzuela was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 12. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></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) </A> 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. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014207.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Joseph Devon Hill (Hill) and Emma Renee Wright (Wright) were walking on Castle Street in Wilmington. The area was well lit by both street and porch lights. Who was dressed in a light gray pullover and black jeans. When Hill told Melvin that he did not have any money. Hill observed that the white Chevrolet Caprice was occupied by four males. Melvin was not breathing heavily during the encounter.1 Meanwhile. Wilmington Police Officer Charles Niforos (Officer Niforos) was dispatched in his marked patrol car to the area of Seventh and Queen Streets in reference to a report of a stolen license plate. As Officer Niforos was traveling northbound on Seventh Street. Which was moving at a high rate of speed. Hill and Wright saw the white Chevrolet Caprice that was used as the getaway car approaching them. Hill told Officer Niforos that the car was connected to the attempted robbery. Who was also on patrol. The white Chevrolet Caprice was parked with the engine running and had three black male occupants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/033841P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> After Palmer's second conviction was reversed. Cherie Palmer was permitted to testify against Palmer in his third trial. Palmer was again convicted and again sentenced to death. Contending that his second trial violated his right against double jeopardy and that his impending third trial would also constitute a double jeopardy violation because the properly admitted evidence in both his first and second trials was legally insufficient to convict him. The privilege had been inapplicable only in cases where the crime charged was rape. A. Substantive Review of State Court Decisions Our power to review underlying state court decisions in habeas corpus cases is restricted to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-1772_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Four of the defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment and one received a prison term of 262 months. I. The Latin Kings are a national criminal organization (often called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D6495646EB35EBE882571ED007FCF23/$file/0455122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Are not suspected of fraud or ineligibility. Are automatically enrolled in Project 100%. The parties are essentially in agreement as to the structure and operation of Project 100%. The visit includes a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/973057.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sitting by designation when this case originally was argued April 5. The issue before the en banc court in this case is whether the appellant Reginald D. McGlory was arrested. Incident to his arrest various of his property was seized and most of the seized property. Was subjected to administrative or judicial forfeiture by the DEA. Before we can consider the adequacy of the particular administrative forfeiture notices that are the subject of this appeal. Also before the en banc court are consolidated appeals in United States v. They raise distinct legal issues and will be addressed hereafter in a separate opinion. 2 adequate notice of administrative forfeiture proceedings is provided to a prisoner who is in local detention facilities by mailing the notices to an office of the United States Marshals Service. Federal pretrial detainees are often housed in state detention facilities. McGlory was indicted by a federal grand jury on October 4. He was charged with possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/91-3528.ma2.html">GLOCK V. SINGLETARY </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Glock v. A panel of this court granted relief from the sentence based on Glock's claim that the trial court's jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague. Which was that the admission into evidence of a confession he made together with his codefendant violated his Confrontation Clause rights under Cruz v. Were convicted in Florida of the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. Which was recorded by a court reporter. Stating that the murder was Glock's idea. The two men agreed that the entire statement accurately recounted the incident. Glock and Puiatti were tried together. Were admitted in evidence. No limiting instruction was requested or given with respect to the joint confession. One of the aggravators was that the murder was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8B53EDC826E8CC6A8825726800054A4B/$file/0530266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: 1. It was not until the Petition for Rehearing that Jawara. First addressed whether the expert's reliance on the country report is testimonial under Crawford v. This is a significant question given the traditional reliance on State Department country reports in immigration proceedings. Because the comparative country conditions were not central to the charges here and the admission of this testimony was harmless. The same is true with respect to 808 UNITED STATES v. As I have stated. The evidence on the document fraud charge is comparatively weak. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. We focus primarily on Jawara's claim of misjoinder and clarify the framework for assessing whether the joined offenses are of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C301AB1B78750E5388256F390079A333/$file/0150082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Suzanne Schoenberg Sanchez ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/91-3528.ma2.html">GLOCK V. SINGLETARY </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Glock v. A panel of this court granted relief from the sentence based on Glock's claim that the trial court's jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague. Which was that the admission into evidence of a confession he made together with his codefendant violated his Confrontation Clause rights under Cruz v. Were convicted in Florida of the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. Which was recorded by a court reporter. Stating that the murder was Glock's idea. The two men agreed that the entire statement accurately recounted the incident. Glock and Puiatti were tried together. Were admitted in evidence. No limiting instruction was requested or given with respect to the joint confession. One of the aggravators was that the murder was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2041.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Lenehan & Iacopino were on consolidated brief. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This appeal arises out of unpardonable misconduct committed by a federal prosecutor who should have known better. Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution is memorialized in a recent opinion of this court. The facts pertaining to the misconduct are recounted in the opinion below. The prosecutors who controlled the case 2 were members of the Justice Department's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/022524.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This civil action was brought in the District Court for the District of New Jersey by a consortium of media groups seeking access to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962412.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Line 29 the cross reference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E7289F7685CAA0A788256EBA005A6CED/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Arguing that the statement was taken in violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and in violation of his entitlement to Miranda warnings under the Fifth Amendment. Bowdich's subsequent investigation led him to believe that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/630C41C84B670F308825729D007E5429/$file/0315481.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Beam *Karen Tandy is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Appellant Angel McClary Raich ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/061889P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was convicted by a jury of mail fraud. This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Arguing that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for mail fraud. The Parties Jennings was elected to the House of Representatives for the State of Minnesota in 1984 and served through 2002. Jennings was the president of M&M Sanitation. Jennings was also a fifty percent partner with Brad Cook in Cook & Jennings The Honorable Richard H. Was a banker at the Town & Country Bank in Almelund. Poletech was attempting to develop a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984585.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> No. 98 4585 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He argues that no evidence was presented that he had the intent to distribute. 1 Daryl Fuller was indicted for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine within one thousand feet of a housing facility owned by a public housing authority.2 On February 27. The district court accurately informed Fuller of the elements of the offense with which he was charged. All dates are in 1998. 2 The indictment also charged Fuller with a count of possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 844(a) (West 1999). This count was dismissed as part of his plea agreement. 2 At the district court's request. Fuller to be doing what apparently was rolling a marijuana cigarette. Fuller's attorney explained that his client had asked him for some </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/94-3326.htm">94-3326 -- U.S. V. ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 41, BERRYHILL FARM ESTATES -- 10/29/1997 </A> Dunmore contends the district court's grant of summary judgment is subject to reversal on any of the following grounds: (1) the forfeiture violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. (3) the warrant for the arrest of personal property was a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (4) the forfeiture of personal property was constitutionally excessive. (5) the United States' conduct in prosecuting this civil forfeiture action was fundamentally unfair in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1694.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Griffiths challenges whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/94-3326.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. LOT 41, BERRYHILL FARM ESTATES </A> Dunmore contends the district court's grant of summary judgment is subject to reversal on any of the following grounds: (1) the forfeiture violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. (3) the warrant for the arrest of personal property was a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (4) the forfeiture of personal property was constitutionally excessive. (5) the United States' conduct in prosecuting this civil forfeiture action was fundamentally unfair in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411283.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are concerned with only four of them: Ndiaye. Sumbodo were also charged with substantive counts of encouraging and inducing aliens to reside illegally in the Honorable Richard Mills. Sumbodo and Diaw were also charged with substantive counts of making false statements in an application for a Social Security number. Guilty verdicts were returned against all four defendants. Diaw and Sumbodo were convicted of all crimes with which they were charged. Ndiaye and Aimasiko were convicted of conspiracy and acquitted of encouraging and inducing an alien to reside in the United States. The district court imposed the following sentences: (1) Ndiaye was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for one count of conspiring to commit identification document fraud and Social Security fraud. (2) Sumbodo was sentenced to 44 months for one count of conspiring to commit Social Security fraud and immigration fraud. (3) Aimasiko was sentenced to 21 months for one count of conspiring to commit Social Security fraud and immigration fraud. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015858.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113606enb.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for these particular functions. Defendant Sheriff Peterson is responsible for the operation of the jail in Clinch County. Sheriff Peterson's deputy and chief jailer is Alan Brown. As Manders was escorted into the jail's holding cell. Manders was released from jail. The Manual also details when deadly force is justified. Are responsible for use of force policy at the jail. For ensuring that the policy is followed.3 According to Manders. Manders sought damages against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity.4 The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Manders's § 1983 damage claims against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity for the use of force policy at the jail and the training and The parties and the district court litigated this lawsuit against Sheriff Peterson as if all of Manders's § 1983 claims against Clinch County also were made against Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity. Claiming that he is a state actor and that the district court erred in denying him Eleventh Amendment immunity.6 This appeal does not address the individual liability of Sheriff Peterson or his deputies for using excessive force.7 Instead. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0066p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court also found that the warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause for the crimes of bank fraud. The district court ruled that the warrant was not stale. The warrant was not general in nature. Even if the omissions were included in the search warrant. Probable cause would have still existed. Defendants' claim was that they were impermissibly indicted for each transaction of the bank fraud scheme. The district court found that the argument was substantively incorrect. The district court rejected Defendants' contention that expert witness testimony was improperly admitted. The district court reaffirmed its decision to exclude Defendants' evidence that they were the target of selective prosecution. Defendants alleged that they were targeted because of their Arab descent in the post September 11 landscape. That selective prosecution was not a matter for the jury. Defendants' Business Practices Defendants are brothers who own various </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-5008.htm">03-5008 -- CANNON V. MULLIN -- 09/13/2004 </A> Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/98-2040.htm">98-2040 -- U.S. V. PRENTISS -- 07/12/2001 </A> (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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061795p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0271n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Oakland County The following factual background is taken from the district court's concise and thorough recitation of the facts as set forth in its opinion and order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment: Defendant uses an equal employment opportunity policy. Although experience with the criminal justice system was not listed as a requirement for obtaining the job. The description was as follows: Under limited direction. Is responsible for supervising Pretrial Service unit employees and support staff. The position is responsible for the formation of policies and procedures and the actual development of the Pretrial Services. Whoever is hired must serve as Pretrial Service's liaison to other agencies. Were a master's degree in public or business administration. Was not listed as a requirement as such. Plaintiff was rejected because he did not meet the minimum qualifications. Defendant replied in writing that Plaintiff's application was rejected because he appeared to lack the required caseload and counseling experience. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-6129.man.html">SUMMIT MED. ASSOCIATES V. PRYOR (7/15/1999, NO. 98-6129) </A> Circuit Judge: The central issue raised in this interlocutory appeal is whether Alabama's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars this suit in federal court against the Governor. Because Appellants have no enforcement authority over those specific provisions. Remand this case with instructions to the district court to dismiss Appellees' challenge to the private civil enforcement provision of the partial birth abortion statute. <CENTER>I.</CENTER> Appellees are three corporations that own abortion clinics. If he is married to the woman who underwent the abortion. If the woman is a minor at the time of the procedure. Where the abortion </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyNDRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1244_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyNDRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1244_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-6129.man.html">SUMMIT MED. ASSOCIATES V. PRYOR (7/15/1999, NO. 98-6129) </A> Circuit Judge: The central issue raised in this interlocutory appeal is whether Alabama's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars this suit in federal court against the Governor. Because Appellants have no enforcement authority over those specific provisions. Remand this case with instructions to the district court to dismiss Appellees' challenge to the private civil enforcement provision of the partial birth abortion statute. <CENTER>I.</CENTER> Appellees are three corporations that own abortion clinics. If he is married to the woman who underwent the abortion. If the woman is a minor at the time of the procedure. Where the abortion </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2930B213B4F0BFD688256E5A00707CF1/$file/0030161.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Severino argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced 14023 without the due process required by 21 U.S.C. § 851 because the information was defectively filed and served. I Severino and 17 others were charged in a Superseding Indictment filed December 13. The agreement provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2274.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Oestreicher were on brief for appellant/cross appellee. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1263.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is The opinion of this Court issued on April 17. Is amended as follows: amended as follows: Page 4. It is the routine practice of a session of the District Court . . It is the routine practice of a session of the District Court of Massachusetts. Were on brief for defendants. Were on brief for defendants. Were on brief for plaintiffs. Were on brief for plaintiffs. * Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Police officers William Sullivan and Donald Breault were called to investigate a motor vehicle accident which had occurred in the area of Morgan and Ridge streets in Fall River. In the area where this automobile accident took place members of the Portuguese community in Fall River had assembled to construct floats for the Labor Day parade which was to take place the next Monday. Among these individuals was Francisco Cabral. Who was in charge of organizing the parade.2 1 At the time of the trial itself. Local Rule 48.1 was numbered 1 At the time of the trial itself. Local Rule 48.1 was numbered Local Rule 23. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/01344EF56992B5FD88256AD40078ECD6/$file/0030161.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Severino argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced 14023 without the due process required by 21 U.S.C. § 851 because the information was defectively filed and served. I Severino and 17 others were charged in a Superseding Indictment filed December 13. The agreement provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/95-2322.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> We must consider whether this appeal is moot. Appellants assert that their appeal is not moot. We have the power to grant effective relief. This appeal is not moot. The attorney was permitted to write down any question he thought might call for the disclosure of communications protected by the attorney client privilege. To consult with appellants who were stationed outside the grand jury room. The court stated that appellants would have a full opportunity to litigate that issue in a contempt hearing. Denied them due process of law.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/05-3093a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With her on the briefs was A.J. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. After the case was assigned to a federal district judge. Because there are neither findings nor evidence sufficient to assess the constitutionality of the roadblock. The roadblock was marked by uniformed officers waving flashlights and police cars with flashing overhead lights. It was manned by approximately sixteen officers. To ensure that Bowman did not have a weapon. Bowman was eventually restrained and searched. The magistrate judge did not have authority to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. (2) even if the magistrate did have that authority. The dismissal order was erroneous as a matter of law because it should have been made without prejudice. Arguing that they were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finding that the roadblock was conducted for a legitimate purpose and that Bevilacqua had a reasonable basis for detaining Bowman and conducting a limited pat down. The Speedy Trial Act provides that an indictment must be filed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19983455.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Senior Circuit Judge. *Honorable Will L. Circuit Judge: The ultimate question in this case is whether a state divorce court can defease the United States of its interest in property forfeited under the criminal forfeiture provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 982 (1994) and 21 U.S.C. § 853 (1994). Or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed. Knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property that is of a value greater than $10. 000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity. The punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under title 18. Or imprisonment for not more than ten years or both. (2) The court may impose an alternate fine to that imposable under paragraph (1) of not more than twice the amount of the criminally derived property involved in the transaction. .... (d) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are (1) that the offense under this section takes place in the United States . . . . .... (f) As used in this section (1) the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0094p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Humphress argues that the district court erred in concluding that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. Humphress argues that his sentence was increased on the basis of facts found by the sentencing court. Does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review and because there is no reasonable probability that. Humphress would have pled guilty. We will AFFIRM the district court's denial of the § 2255 motion. I. Humphress's underlying conviction is based on an agreement to murder an FBI agent. Dick told his cellmate that he wished to have several federal officials. Hester testified that this agreement was never reduced to writing. Ray was unable to produce any record of the negotiations. Ray sent the United States Attorney's office a letter advising that Humphress was unwilling to accept the plea agreement. Humphress was acquitted of soliciting a crime of violence and utilizing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. After his sentence was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0239p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Ricky Martin Luna were all arrested for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The four defendants were part of a vast drug enterprise that brought large quantities of cocaine and marijuana into Nashville. They were convicted by a jury of these crimes and given sentences ranging from 210 months (Solorio) to 292 months (Juarez). Factual Background The defendants in this case were all part of a drug ring that bought. The leaders of this operation (which was based in Nashville) were Terrell McMurry and Timothy Booker. The first were Omar Rocha Rodriguez (known as Omar Rocha) and Adriana Rocha Espinoza (a woman who lived with Rocha). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1301.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellee. The defendants were arraigned in two groups. Pled guilty before the same judge and were sentenced before him by early 1995. Ismael Rivera DeCelis contends that his guilty plea was entered in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. P. 11 and that the sentence calculations with respect to him were not in error. Her attack is based on her claim that she met the conditions set forth in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The five defendants were arrested. Were The defendants raised the following additional issues on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct regarding the testimony of a government witness and during closing argument. Guerrero were also charged with conspiring to deliver to Cuba </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9D6DB197E87E1F188256F780000E7E9/$file/0335081.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Lambert filed a Personal Restraint Petition in the Washington Court of Appeals attacking his plea on the grounds that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and the plea was not knowingly. Failed to advise him that he should not plead guilty because he would receive the same sentence if he were convicted after a trial. (3) Romero labored under an actual conflict of interest created by his association with an indigent defense firm that was also representing Lambert's co defendant. Lambert also reasserted the allegation that his guilty plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware that the sentence set forth in his plea agreement life in prison without the possibility of parole truly meant that he would never be released. BLODGETT 17319 also concluded that Lambert was entitled to habeas relief on the ground that his plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware of the punishment he would face. Lambert cross appeals the issues on which he was denied relief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFA461FFB98287D4882570AE000E1261/$file/0356885.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Chaker was convicted by a jury for filing a knowingly false complaint of peace officer misconduct in violation of California Penal Code section 148.6(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Chaker alleged that he was strip searched by Detective Bradberry. Two days after Officer Bradberry arrested Chaker for theft of services.2 The court reasoned that the state could use the complaint as evidence of what was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1113p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This asbestos related personal injury action was tried to a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We are called on to determine whether: (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of two jurors who allegedly evidenced bias against the defense. (2) the defendant has waived any claim that there was a violation of its statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges. (3) a denial or impairment of the exercise of peremptory challenges occurs if the defendant uses one or more challenges to remove jurors who should have been removed for cause. (4) a per se reversal is the appropriate remedy for such impairment or whether the defendant must also make a showing of prejudice. We are called upon to determine whether the district court committed an error of law by: (1) allowing plaintiff to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of an out of court expert witness from an unrelated state court action. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and liability.[fn1] Since it is likely that the hearsay issues and the issue of delay damages may arise again during the new trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/95-2322.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> We must consider whether this appeal is moot. Appellants assert that their appeal is not moot. We have the power to grant effective relief. This appeal is not moot. The attorney was permitted to write down any question he thought might call for the disclosure of communications protected by the attorney client privilege. To consult with appellants who were stationed outside the grand jury room. The court stated that appellants would have a full opportunity to litigate that issue in a contempt hearing. Denied them due process of law.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/921500E7C5A64E0A882571C30048F0C9/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F45AD78B33DB95D988256E5A00707BDC/$file/9935162.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062250p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The most salient feature of that sentence is a 2 144 month term of imprisonment more than double the top end of the advisory range under the Sentencing Guidelines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/01e768a353d741b688256b680080d9bf/$FILE/0010505.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The government is required to pay his attorney's fees because the prosecution was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-3100b.html">USA V. RAMSEY CHARLES W. </A> were on brief for the appellee. Before: Wald. Circuit Judge: Charles Ram sey was convicted of one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Ramsey was charged in a two count indictment with one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. DEA's initial plan was to conduct the transaction differently from the way Fierro and Ramsey had traditionally done business by mak ing Ramsey pay for the drugs up front. Fierro's role was to facilitate the exchange between Valentine and Ramsey. Between mid September 1995 and his arrest on November 21. Ramsey and Fierro had numerous recorded tele phone and face to face conversations about drug transactions. Most of the conversations were recorded by DEA or by Fierro using DEA supplied equipment. While Ramsey was eager to move several kilograms. He did not have the cash to buy the drugs at delivery. Ramsey mentioned that Washington was currently </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/96-1469.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MCVEIGH </A> Which has thus far received virtually no judicial attention: whether a pretrial order prohibiting victim impact witnesses from attending the criminal prosecution in which they are slated to testify is subject to review at the urging of either the government or the nonparty witnesses themselves. That it is not. Both seeking to secure an alternative avenue of review in the event their appeals were deemed defective. The briefs of the parties and amici(1) have now been filed. I The government's right to appeal in criminal cases is subject to unique limitations. Government appeals in criminal cases were considered verboten. Two general rules have survived this historical evolution: the government may only initiate criminal appeals based on specific statutory authority. There is a presumption against government criminal appeals. The cases are therefore ordered submitted on the briefs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2000/981719.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The question for decision is whether an order to pay restitution to fraud victims in a federal criminal proceeding at a time prior to the October 1998 amendments of the Bankruptcy Code is dischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. The District Court determined that Abdur Amin Rashid's restitution obligation was statutorily exempt from discharge as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/98-7034.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PHILLIPS (8/30/2000, NO. 98-7034) </A> We are faced with a threshold issue of appellate jurisdiction. Was that too late? Is entry of the order granting a § 2255 motion that seeks an out of time appeal the event that starts the notice of appeal clock running? PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/97-3100a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for the appellee. Circuit Judge: Charles Ram sey was convicted of one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 841(a)(1). Ramsey was charged in a two count indictment with one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. DEA's initial plan was to conduct the transaction differently from the way Fierro and Ramsey had traditionally done business by mak ing Ramsey pay for the drugs up front. Fierro's role was to facilitate the exchange between Valentine and Ramsey. Most of the conversations were recorded by DEA or by Fierro using DEA supplied equipment. While Ramsey was eager to move several kilograms. He did not have the cash to buy the drugs at delivery. Ramsey mentioned that Washington was currently </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F31BC7CFC2E61F36882572BA0076FFCD/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/022710p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Pelullo was indicted on December 9. He was convicted by a jury on November 8. After the judgment in this case was affirmed by this 3 Court on direct appeal. We will reverse the District Court's grant of a new trial. We also conclude that Pelullo's challenge to the jury instructions is procedurally barred by United States v. We will thus affirm the District Court's denial of his request for collateral relief. We will direct the District Court to reinstate the judgment of Pelullo's conviction and his sentence. We will remand to the District Court for resolution of the remaining issues raised by Pelullo in his § 2255 motion. Even if it was listed in the Notice of Appeal. It is deemed waived. It is the government that is appealing the District Court's grant of a new trial based on the government's purported failure to abide by its Brady obligations. We are thus called upon to revisit the parameters of prosecutorial obligations under Brady. For reasons which will later become apparent. We are See. 14 F.3d 881 (3d Cir. 1994) (reversing all of Pelullo's convictions on the ground that it was error to use prior conviction upheld in Pelullo I as collateral estoppel to establish predicate offense in trial before second jury). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/973639P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which was enacted as part of the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/01E768A353D741B688256B680080D9BF/$file/0010505.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The government is required to pay his attorney's fees because the prosecution was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/00-11114.man.html">UNITED KINGDOM V. UNITED STATES (1/19/2001, NO. 00-11114) </A> All of which Appellants contend are relevant to their defense of a criminal prosecution in England. The district court found that the undisclosed documents are privileged or protected by statute. We affirm. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0446p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The base offense level for each of these crimes is 12. Arguing that the recommended two level enhancement for multiple counts was impermissible and. That the correct adjusted offense level was 12. Cousins now appeals his sentence on the grounds that the district judge incorrectly calculated the Guidelines range and that the sentence is unreasonable in light of United States v. On the ground that the three level enhancement for the official status of the victims constitutes double counting because the victims' identities are elements of the charged offenses. The two counts arising from Cousins's threats against the President were treated as a single count in the PSR. Because Cousins is a career criminal. Because he could not be found guilty of violating either § 871(a) or § 879(a)(2) were his victims ordinary citizens rather than a public official and his relatives. Cousins is mistaken. B. Reasonableness of the Variance Cousins also contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district judge failed adequately to explain why the upward variance of two months was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0181p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-7115.htm">01-7115 -- ORANGE V. CALBONE -- 02/04/2003 </A> We in turn conclude that his federal habeas petition was timely filed. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings. <center>I.</center> Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Marshall County. Was formally sentenced for those convictions on September 10. He was removed from the Marshall County Jail less than five days after his sentencing. Petitioner's trial counsel was not informed of petitioner's whereabouts. There is no indication that petitioner was allowed to make contact with his counsel. Although it is uncontroverted that petitioner intended to appeal his convictions (petitioner's trial counsel stated this intent at the time of sentencing). A timely appeal was not filed on his behalf. On April 2. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was filed outside the one year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3614_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Sornbergers were released. First Bank was robbed by a perpetrator wearing a baseball cap. Illinois Chief of Police Rick Pesci was the first law enforcement official to arrive at the scene. No eyewitness nor any other First Bank employee was able to identify the robber. Who was an acquaintance of Dugan and a former customer of First Bank. Dugan remarked that he was less sure of the likeness. Who was present intermittently while the employ 4 No. 04 3614 ees viewed the surveillance tapes. Both Sornbergers offered consistent alibis: They were together at Scott's parents' home. All of these officers are named as defendants in this action. Only Teresa was present. She complied and was transported to Galesburg in the front seat of a police car. Although the existence of the statement is undisputed. Exactly what occurred during Teresa's interview is the subject of intense dispute between the parties. She was 6 No. 04 3614 told immediately after arriving in Galesburg that she was a suspect in the robbery. Teresa claims that she was then psychologically coerced into confessing by Officer Sheppard who allegedly (1) falsely informed her that witnesses placed her at the scene of the robbery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/00-11114.man.html">UNITED KINGDOM V. UNITED STATES (1/19/2001, NO. 00-11114) </A> All of which Appellants contend are relevant to their defense of a criminal prosecution in England. The district court found that the undisclosed documents are privileged or protected by statute. We affirm. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-7034.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PHILLIPS (8/30/2000, NO. 98-7034) </A> We are faced with a threshold issue of appellate jurisdiction. Was that too late? Is entry of the order granting a § 2255 motion that seeks an out of time appeal the event that starts the notice of appeal clock running? PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/34008B8937E46C0A88256A84007C53B0/$file/9935162.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611141.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Clerici's Lawsuit in Panama Clerici is a Panamanian citizen and merchant who also resides in Miami. Certain property of NoName was seized. The attachment of NoName's property was vacated. The 2 resolution of Clerici's civil lawsuit was appealed and affirmed by Panama's First Superior Court of Justice on November 13. NoName alleged that it was a new business in Panama and in the process of expanding. In which Clerici was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/97-3100b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for the appellee. Circuit Judge: Charles Ram sey was convicted of one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. s 841(a)(1). Ramsey was charged in a two count indictment with one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. DEA's initial plan was to conduct the transaction differently from the way Fierro and Ramsey had traditionally done business by mak ing Ramsey pay for the drugs up front. Fierro's role was to facilitate the exchange between Valentine and Ramsey. Most of the conversations were recorded by DEA or by Fierro using DEA supplied equipment. While Ramsey was eager to move several kilograms. He did not have the cash to buy the drugs at delivery. Ramsey mentioned that Washington was currently </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/05/992406P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Remon Lee was tried in Missouri state court on charges of first degree murder and armed criminal action. Sitting by designation. * The continuance was denied and Lee was convicted and given a concurrent sentence of life without parole on the murder charge and ten years on the armed criminal action charge. Lee claimed his trial motion for a continuance and his postconviction motion for a new trial were improperly denied. The Missouri Court of Appeals found the continuance motion was properly denied because it did not comply with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.09. The court also found the new trial motion was properly denied because Lee failed to produce evidence showing counsel was ineffective. We granted a certificate of appealability on the question of whether denial of Lee's motion for a continuance was a due process violation. Federal habeas review is not available on Lee's due process claim if the Missouri Court of Appeals </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-2319.htm">01-2319 -- U.S. V. AVILA-REYES -- 06/18/2002 </A> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365) </A> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1679p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The private interests that will be affected by the state's notification in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cases if the outcome of the hearing is in the state's favor are very substantial. This jeopardy will not only extend to virtually every aspect of the registrant's everyday life. It will also last at least 15 years. Has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens by giving prompt notification to potential victims and relevant caregivers with respect to registrants who are accurately determined to be Tier 2 or Tier 3 risks. The state also has an interest in ensuring that its classification and notification system is both fair and accurate. The state has no substantial interest in notifying persons who will not come into contact with the registrant. Nor has it any interest in notifying those who will come into contact with a registrant who has erroneously been identified as a moderate or high risk. Compared to proceedings in which that burden is on the registrant. The 60 risk of error will be materially reduced without materially impairing the state's ability to secure a prompt determination and without imposing substantial new administrative burdens on the state. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994088.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> When Stand was approximately 18. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0268p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365) </A> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216337.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The government argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the order because the motions were filed outside the time limits for post verdict motions prescribed in Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That the district court's order was wrong on the merits as well. I The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are straightforward. So called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974465.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Rehearing en banc on the witness exclusion issue of Michael Rhynes is granted. Parts IV and XVI (only insofar as Part XVI relates to Part IV) of the published majority opinion filed 10/26/99 are vacated. Lines 11 12 the counsel listing is corrected to add </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015142.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Judy Weaver was the Director of Finance of Flagler Career Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/012883.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We are here asked to decide whether an Assistant United States Attorney ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1808.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-15142.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WEAVER (11/13/2001, NO. 00-15142) </A> Judy Weaver was the Director of Finance of Flagler Career Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1486.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellee. Alleging that it is unconstitutionally vague. Claims that his motion for acquittal was improperly denied by the trial judge in that the government failed to prove his willfulness to commit the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Contends that he was improperly sentenced under the obstruction of justice guideline. Appellant was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury convened in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This motion was granted. Appellant was again summoned before the grand jury and a copy of the May 7th order was served upon him and his attorney. A hearing was conducted before the district judge. He was thereafter adjudged in civil contempt by the district judge and pursuant to the civil contempt statute. Was committed to federal custody until such time as he obeyed the May 7th order. As things would have it. When he was released from civil incarceration. Alleging that his prosecution was barred on double jeopardy. These contentions were rejected by the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E58B9523D0E9679C88256EAC00577514/$file/0235675.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Kevin Anderson was convicted in 1993 of first degree rape and sodomy under Oregon laws that prohibit having sexual intercourse with a person </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1105.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on brief. P.C. were on brief. The court ruled that Sawyer was prosecuted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-15142.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WEAVER (11/13/2001, NO. 00-15142) </A> Judy Weaver was the Director of Finance of Flagler Career Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1368.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Stephen Dye was convicted by a Wisconsin jury of possession with intent to deliver cocaine. Arguing that his criminal conviction was a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution as he had already been subjected to a tax assessment and seizure based upon his possession of the same drugs. The money seized was returned to Dye in August 1994. Dye was subsequently criminally charged for possession of more than five grams of cocaine with intent to deliver. Dye was convicted and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. He argued that the criminal charges following the seizure of his assets constituted double punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. 1 This version of the tax was found unconstitutional by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1997. The statute was operative in 1994 when Dye's property was seized and we must therefore determine whether it also enacts a criminal punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis. It is undisputed that Dye's criminal conviction and imprisonment constituted criminal punishment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug27/03-20126-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Facts and Proceedings Below Mario Roberto Madriz Alvarado (Madriz) is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection on September 26. When he was eight years old. Of less than one gram of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and was granted a deferred adjudication under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12 section 5. The Immigration and Naturalization Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Texas Controlled Substance Act. Knowing possession (other than pursuant to a prescription or practitioner's order) of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053684p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is what happened. Inasmuch as his criminal history category was III and his total offense level was 25. Colon's guideline sentencing range was 70 87 months. Would have subjected him to a term of 262 months to 327 months imprisonment. A 50% increase over what the statute required but far less than the court would have imposed had it treated Colon as a career offender. The court imposed a sentence that was a departure beyond that yielded by any guideline sentencing category once it rejected using the career offender category for Colon.1 After Colon appealed. Was significant in this federal prosecution as its reasoning cast doubt on the validity of the federal sentencing guidelines. 1113 14 (3d Cir. 1993).2 The court also imposed a fine and special assessment at the original sentencing and the resentencing but they are not at issue on this appeal. 2 1 The order recited: 3 As it happened. Sentences now must be reasonable taking into account all of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/022460p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The basic law underlying Dia's substantive claims is clear. He is unable or unwilling to return to his home country </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053001p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That his decision to proceed pro se was not knowing. A forensic examiner later determined that the white powder was cocaine. B. Waiver of Right to Counsel Jones was indicted on a single count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). That Jones had been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep13/03-20126-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Facts and Proceedings Below Mario Roberto Madriz Alvarado (Madriz) is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without We affirm. inspection on September 26. When he was eight years old. Of less than one gram of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and was granted a deferred adjudication under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12 section 5. The Immigration and Naturalization Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Texas Controlled Substance Act. Knowing possession (other than pursuant to a prescription or practitioner's order) of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044134p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge Craig Brownlee was convicted by a jury of carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 3 1 out of the car. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310857.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which was ultimately unsuccessful. Application for electronic surveillance was supported by an affidavit signed jointly by detectives Linda Sue Burton and William Blake of the county sheriff's office. (2) a pediatrician's opinion that pictures of the child indicated that hair Some of the facts alleged were that: (1) Marlene Aisenberg sounded hysterical in her initial </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/031441p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This proposed statutory construction is incompatible with the text of the statute as well as existing case law in our Circuit. Which were advertised in national magazines. Grasso was indicted for mail fraud. A superseding indictment was filed. Grasso was indicted yet again. The motion was denied. The cases were consolidated for sentencing. Payment of defense counsel fees was a recurring issue during the criminal proceedings. The motion was denied. The case was assigned to another judge in March 2001. Two money laundering counts were dismissed during the course of the trial. 4 additional funds from frozen accounts for payment of counsel fees. Which was intended to protect his assets for distribution to victims. Were to be paid from the frozen funds. Did the Government need to establish tha t Gra s s o ' s m o n ey launde ring transactions were conducted with the net profits. Grasso's conviction for money laundering was based on his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/90-6020.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. CALDERON </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Customs Agent Richard Johnson received a tip that a suspicious vessel named What's Up was being towed into Tortola Marina in Key Largo. Appellants and others were arrested and indicted on various charges including conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine from the Bahamas. Cocaine was smuggled into the United States aboard the What's Up. Appellants participated in the importation and distribution conspiracy in different roles and. Those portions were presided over by Judge Thomas E. Appellants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 188 months to 336 months. We will discuss the facts relevant to appellants' claims in greater detail in conjunction with our discussion of each of their assertions of error. II. Garcia contend that the evidence presented by the government was insufficient to sustain their convictions. Thus was insufficient to impose conspiratorial liability. Not a single conspiracy as charged in the indictment and that Calderon was prejudiced by that variance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/205F1FE24E4AA82A88256B7300039E0D/$file/0016509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court found that most of the evidence submitted by Orr in support of her opposition to BOA's motion for summary judgment was inadmissible due to inadequate authentication and hearsay. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND Orr was a service manager for BOA's Incline Village branch in 1992. Joe Bourdeau ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0159p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Danner was convicted in November 1996 in Kentucky state court on two counts of first degree sodomy and one count of first degree rape and was sentenced to twenty four years imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. His conviction was affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court. Petitioner Danner was indicted on February 8. Danner sexually abused her from 1986 to 1990 while she was between the ages of five and ten years old. By the time Danner was brought to trial. Shonda was fifteen years of age. Because the Commonwealth felt that Shonda would have difficulty testifying in the presence of Danner. The statute applies to prosecutions where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0273p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1024p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were found guilty of knowingly and intentionally using a communication facility in committing. Edmonds also was convicted of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. These appeals have been consolidated. Those two appellants argue that the drug quantities attributed to them for sentencing purposes were not justified by the evidence presented at trial. An appropriate drug weight estimate will lower Carlton Love's U.S. We will remand his case for resentencing. It is unclear whether an appropriate drug weight estimate would change Cora Love's offense level. So we will remand her case for further findings and. Carlton Love claims that the search warrant was issued on the basis of an affidavit containing information allegedly obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The package was searched and found to contain approximately $200. The appellants were tried. We have jurisdiction to hear these appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. His first is that the government failed to meet the statute's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/90-6020.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. CALDERON </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Customs Agent Richard Johnson received a tip that a suspicious vessel named What's Up was being towed into Tortola Marina in Key Largo. Appellants and others were arrested and indicted on various charges including conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine from the Bahamas. Cocaine was smuggled into the United States aboard the What's Up. Appellants participated in the importation and distribution conspiracy in different roles and. Those portions were presided over by Judge Thomas E. Appellants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 188 months to 336 months. We will discuss the facts relevant to appellants' claims in greater detail in conjunction with our discussion of each of their assertions of error. II. Garcia contend that the evidence presented by the government was insufficient to sustain their convictions. Thus was insufficient to impose conspiratorial liability. Not a single conspiracy as charged in the indictment and that Calderon was prejudiced by that variance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0035p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> He is entitled to have Booker apply retroactively despite the fact that Booker was decided after his resentencing became final. I. Petitioner was the second most culpable member of a major drug conspiracy. United States Page 2 Petitioner was indicted on November 12. Petitioner was charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute heroin and cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 846. Was convicted on July 2. Petitioner was sentenced on November 25. This Court granted Petitioner permission to file a successive § 2255 motion limited to the question of whether Petitioner's firearm conviction was still valid under Bailey v. Petitioner was resentenced on June 13. 530 U.S. 466 (2000) was decided. Which was affirmed by this Court in United States v. Arguing that the drug quantities that triggered the mandatory </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-3080b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were David G. With them on the brief were Laura S. Owen moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment charging tax evasion and related crimes on the ground that the indictment was beyond the prosecutorial jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. It gave Indepen dent Counsel Starr jurisdiction to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Special Division ordered that the Independent Counsel have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prose cute the subject matter with respect to which the Attor ney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. These grants of authority were under 28 U.S.C. s 593(b)(1). Secret Service records indicate that James Riady had made several visits to the White House in the days before the payment to Hubbell was made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2001/00-15142.op2.html">UNITED STATES V. WEAVER (12/18/2001, NO. 00-15142) </A> Judy Weaver was the Director of Finance of Flagler Career Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964916.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Linney was appointed counsel for Stevie Twitty. Linney was elected to the North Carolina General Assembly. Linney told the court that he was not prepared for trial and then. Jury selection in the Twitty case was scheduled to take place at approximately noon. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/991265.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/021046.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will affirm. He was arrested by the Philadelphia Police Department with sixty one packets of cocaine. Dyer was deported and subsequently reentered the United States without permission from the United States Attorney General. Agent McCall was at that address with a member of the Baltimore City Police Department to arrest a female Jamaican national in a matter not involving Dyer. Dyer responded that he was a citizen of Jamaica and provided Agent McCall with an alien registration card. Dyer was taken into custody for two reasons. Dyer admitted that he was currently on probation in the City of Philadelphia for a marijuana conviction. The result of the comparison convinced Agent McCall that Dyer was the same individual who previously had been convicted of cocaine distribution. Dyer was indicted on November 28. While most illegal reentry cases are prosecuted. Some are not. Usually because paperwork was 4 not properly filed or documents are missing from the file. Agent McCall testified that he handles criminal and administrative matters at INS and that there is a separate deportation section. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2001/00-15142.op2.html">UNITED STATES V. WEAVER (12/18/2001, NO. 00-15142) </A> Judy Weaver was the Director of Finance of Flagler Career Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1877A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Molloy was on brief for defendants Arsenal Auto Repairs. Were on brief for defendant Jack Markarian. Were on brief for plaintiff appellee Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. 3 KEETON. The purpose of the scheme was to obtain payments on fraudulent insurance claims. The judgment was for Aetna Casualty and Surety Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015142.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Judy Weaver was the Director of Finance of Flagler Career Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs was Joel Kurtzberg. Reid Alan Cox was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Individual Freedom in support of appellants. Jr. were on the brief for amici curiae Magazine Publishers of America. Is protected by a reporter's privilege arising from the First Amendment. We agree with the District Court that there is no First Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought. It is not absolute. We further conclude that other assignments of error raised by appellants are without merit. In which he claimed to have been sent to Niger in 2002 by the Central Intelligence Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTMzNDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3348-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Leavitt is automatically substituted for his predecessor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to We affirm the judgment of the district 2 BACKGROUND Joseph. [DA 607] The primary role of CSOs is to maintain the safety of the nation's supplies of food. The FDA received an anonymous telephone call alleging that Joseph had been using cocaine for the last three years and that he was using a government vehicle to purchase the drug. Police were called to Joseph's residence. 239 40] Both of the arresting officers believed that Joseph was under the influence of some substance other than alcohol. 239 40] [DA 237 38. That he was a habitual user of the drug. Was identified as the March 14 caller. [DA 244] Douglas gave the FDA her name and said she was Joseph's live in girlfriend. Asserting that the attack was a result of her having reported Joseph to the FDA. [DA 244] Joseph was arraigned on felony assault charges on March 22. [DA 168] 4 Joseph was placed on administrative leave. Said that her head injuries could also have been self inflicted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/993845.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE24B24353BD1131882571EA0055BE58/$file/0530266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We focus primarily on Jawara's claim of misjoinder and clarify the framework for assessing whether the joined offenses are of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1869322645BE651988256E55007CDC35/$file/0216459.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The sanctions which were largely sustained by the BAP were based on appellants' misconduct in improperly invoking the processes of the bankruptcy court to block the progress of a state court civil action in which Smith was counsel for the defendants. One of whom was Miller. . . . those actions were spread out so as to maximize the delay. His orchestration of serial bankruptcy filings and removals by the defendants were all part of a scheme to cause unnecessary delay. The bankruptcy court found that Miller was significantly more than an innocent actor in the bankruptcy filing and the efforts to remove the Cardinale suit. The court reviewed Miller's attempt to remove Cardinale's suit to Daggett's bankruptcy case and indicated that his actions were taken without any legitimate purpose beyond stalling the litigation. While Smith was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/995460.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which he now asserts was his pr operty. The crux of his complaint is that the Drug Enforcement Administration did not properly notify him of the impending forfeiture. This letter was returned with the notation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002337.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This appeal deals only with the summary judgment and focuses mainly on whether there are triable issues on Dalton's claims that CAI's failure to follow FCRA mandated procedures led it to issue a false report on his criminal record. I. Because Dalton was the nonmovant in the summary judgment proceedings. Who was seeking the position of West Coast Regional Sales Manager. In 1993 Dalton was charged in Colorado with second degree assault. Which the clerk erroneously said was a felony. While Sumitomo was waiting for the results of the criminal records check. Informing him that the offer was being withdrawn because he had been convicted of a felony. The Sumitomo representative called Dalton back a half hour later and told him that CAI was standing by its report that he had a felony conviction. Began to reinvestigate whether Dalton was a convicted felon. It had discovered that he was not a convicted felon. Claims that CAI told him that it was standing by its report. Which the clerk said was a felony. When Lehto pressed the clerk about whether third degree assault was really a felony. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024306.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We vacate the judgment of forfeiture to the extent that it is premised on the vacated embezzlement convictions. Rumors of the Bank's financial success were. When bank examiners were subsequently unable to verify more than $515 million of loans reflected as assets on the Bank's books the Bank was closed. Because McConnell's assets were criminally obtained. It (i.e. the FDIC) was entitled to priority in obtaining restitution for its losses. CHERRY Cherry was McConnell's longtime companion. After the new accounts were opened. Cherry and Church also executed a fraudulent codicil to McConnell's will (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1263.htm">99-1263 -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000 </A> The manager and acting director of the restaurant where he was employed as a waiter. Herring was serving a period of probation under Keenan's supervision. The district court rejected Keenan's contention that she was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. We conclude that there is a constitutional right to privacy that protects an individual from the disclosure of information concerning a person's health. Because we hold that it was not clearly established. That a probationer had a constitutionally protected right to privacy regarding information concerning his or her medical condition. <center>I</center> Because we are reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following facts are alleged in the second amended complaint. On or about September of 1993. At no time did he inform Keenan that the results of the HIV test were positive. Herring was employed as a waiter at the 50's Café. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Line 6 a quotation mark is added before the asterisks. The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superseding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661355AA530014388825727900824A50/$file/0370674.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The removal order is deemed to be executed. We consider whether this change in regulation is valid. Why this is so is not clear. It's certainly possible to conceive of a system where a removal order remains in force permanently and may be re executed whenever the alien is found to have reentered the country illegally. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/996126.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Claiming that it was improperly predicated on factual information contained in a state presentence report ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0426p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The primary issue presented in these criminal appeals is whether the district court's method of jury selection a method in which the parties were required to reduce a pool of 30 qualified jurors to a panel of 14 by using all of their peremptory challenges. We conclude that the random designation of alternates at the end of the trial was inconsistent with Rule 24(c). The challenged judgments will be affirmed. Eduardo Flores were indicted on charges of conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. They were jointly tried before a jury. Once the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1689.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Brett Huston are police officers for the City of Milwaukee Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0423p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Ganier is charged with one count of endeavoring to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503(a) and 2 and three counts of altering. On the morning on which Ganier's trial was to begin. Arguing that it was expert testimony for which the government had not provided a written summary as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G). We agree that the proposed testimony was expert testimony for which a written summary should have been provided. Because less severe remedies were not given adequate consideration. 1 Ganier was Chief Executive Officer. A federal task force was formed and began a criminal investigation of the contracts and solicitations as well as various companies associated with John Stamps. Ganier was ultimately indicted on one count of endeavoring to obstruct justice and three counts of altering. In which he indicated that he would offer evidence that the files in question were transferred to the recycle bin rather than deleted. Would have located all or substantially all of the duplicates and similar drafts or versions of the allegedly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041739p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who is facing removal to Haiti. Claims that he will be indefinitely detained upon his arrival in Haiti in prisons that are notorious for their brutal and deplorable conditions that have been compared to those existing on slave ships. There is no doubt that the prison conditions that Auguste and others like him may face upon their removal to Haiti are indeed miserable and inhuman. We find that Auguste is not entitled to relief. We will affirm the decision of the District Court. Is a native and citizen of Haiti who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on December 8. Auguste was convicted of Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance (cocaine) in the third degree in Queens County. Auguste argued that he was entitled to a deferral of removal on the grounds that he faces torture in Haiti because. He will be detained by Haitian authorities for an indeterminate amount of time in harsh and intolerable prison conditions. Who have incurred a criminal record while residing in the United States and who have already served their sentences. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6C8E8FC6531B1CD688256FB10003FE78/$file/0330394.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We consider whether a plea agreement is enforceable and effectively waives the right of appeal. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to assess the merits of this direct appeal. Immediately above Jeronimo's signature in capital letters was the following statement: I HAVE READ OR HAD READ AND TRANSLATED TO ME IN SPANISH BY AN INTERPRETER. THIS AGREEMENT AND HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED EVERY PART OF IT WITH MY ATTORNEY. The following: (1) the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered. JERONIMO closures was the district court's explicit advice to Jeronimo that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-12314.man.html">SMITH V. JONES (7/10/2001, NO. 00-12314) </A> Its application to Alabama prisoners whose direct appeal process was completed before that decision was released. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-12314.man.html">SMITH V. JONES (7/10/2001, NO. 00-12314) </A> Its application to Alabama prisoners whose direct appeal process was completed before that decision was released. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-3078a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> After they have testified. Are entitled to examine the transcripts of their own testimony. We hold that grand jury witnesses are entitled to review the transcripts of their own testimony in private at the U.S. The employee was subpoenaed to testify a fourth time. The second employee testified once and then was subpoenaed to testify again. The Government argues that the district court's denials of the employees' motions for their grand jury transcripts are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-2088.htm">97-2088 -- U.S. V. TALK -- 09/11/1998 </A> His motion is based on Koon v. We would have upheld them thus. Based as it is on an erroneous reversal of all downward departures entertained by the sentencing court. Would have to be vacated. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0008p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Petitioner was charged with two counts of distribution of cocaine. Petitioner was charged with four counts of using a telephone or telephone paging device to facilitate these cocaine distributions. The jury's guilty verdicts on Counts 2 through 11 required the jurors to unanimously agree that Petitioner had committed at least three predicate narcotics violations and that these violations were related to one another because they were all part of the cocaine distribution conspiracy. The district court's failure to expressly instruct jurors that they must unanimously agree which offenses constitute the CCE did not have a substantial and injurious influence or effect on the jury's guilty verdict in the CCE count. 190 F.3d at 476 n.3 (concluding that the district court's failure to give the CCE unanimity instruction required under Richardson </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1635091A3F71F647882572B9007EF60C/$file/0635021.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Justin Metuchen Gamba was convicted and sentenced for witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b). Defense counsel may waive a defendant's right to have an Article III judge conduct closing argument where the decision is one of trial tactics or strategy. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Gamba was charged with two counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. He pleaded not guilty to all charges and the case was set for jury trial. After the instructions were finalized. The relevant portion of the trial transcript reads as follows: THE COURT: Let me tell you what the problem is that I've got. It will be 2:30. Because that's when it will be. Do you have any objection? One thing that I could do is have Judge Erickson sit in on the argument and submit the case to the jury. I have no objection to that. I just have to MR. I have no problem doing that. THE COURT: So is that all right with you guys? THE COURT: Is that all right with the defendant? I'll take a break and then ask Judge Erickson to come in and just sit there for the balance of the argument and submit the instructions and Mary will swear in the bailiff and then send them off. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/01-10262.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. PETRIE (8/22/2002, NO. 01-10262) </A> Which were derived from a specified unlawful activity. A second count charged that all of the property involved in the criminal offense was subject to forfeiture. Finding that the sum of $1 million dollars in funds and other assets remaining at a bank in the Caribbean island of Antigua was property involved in the conspiracy offense or traceable to property so involved. The jury also found that additional property valued at $23 million was similarly involved in the conspiracy offense or traceable to property so involved. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2045.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> This appeal is reviewed only for plain error. Hold that the fourth prong of plain error review is not satisfied. Gonzalez Huerta was convicted of committing burglary in California. He was deported to Mexico in 2000. Gonzalez Huerta was arrested in New Mexico for possession of a <hr> controlled substance. Gonzalez Huerta was being held in a New Mexico jail. This offense is punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years. While this case was pending on appeal. That is to say. Gonzalez Huerta argues for the first time that Booker is grounds for remanding his case for resentencing. We note that this argument was not raised below. Ct. at 756 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/04-3037a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> It is ORDERED that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion in United States v. After the comma insert </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110262.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which were derived from a specified unlawful activity. A second count charged that all of the property involved in the criminal offense was subject to forfeiture. Finding that the sum of $1 million dollars in funds and other assets remaining at a bank in the Caribbean island of Antigua was property involved in the conspiracy offense or traceable to property so involved. The jury also found that additional property valued at $23 million was similarly involved in the conspiracy offense or traceable to property so involved. 1 Petrie filed two separate appeals. Which have been consolidated. 2 The testimony presented at trial revealed that the members of the conspiracy advertised and promoted the availability of venture capital funding through the national and international news media. Persons who responded to these offers were initially instructed to submit financial information to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1029a.html">DACCARETT-GHIA V. CSMNR IRS </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0402p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Prince was arrested and detained for allegedly kidnaping her infant grandson. Hicks appeals the district court's decision on the two </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215217.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Contending that § 33 319(k) of the Miami Dade County Code is facially unconstitutional because it requires the County Manager to impose a building moratorium on certain parcels of real property without affording the procedural due process protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by Article I. Because we agree with the district court that the imposition of an administrative building moratorium pursuant to § 33 319(k) is a legislative act that does not implicate procedural due process protections. About five months after the rezoning was approved. 75 Acres purchased the Our recitation of the facts is drawn from the complaint and accepts 75 Acres' wellpleaded factual allegations as true. The sale agreement between 75 Acres and Bean was contingent upon 75 Acres' success in obtaining approval to rezone the property to a classification acceptable to Bean. Which in turn was contingent upon the rezoning approval first obtained by Cosmos in October 1999. With accepting unlawful compensation as consideration for votes he cast to re zone the property in October 1999 when the property was owned by Cosmos. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E92F8EDB61FBDE0088256B6F0055A881/$file/9835897.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Juan Sanchez Cervantes was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Sanchez Cervantes was the only one to testify. That Sanchez Cervantes was responsible for 280.6 grams of methamphetamine. Which was based on trial counsel's advice encouraging Sanchez Cervantes to testify at trial. While the case was pending in the district court. The court ruled that Sanchez Cervantes made a knowing and voluntary decision to testify and that his counsel's advice was based on a strategic decision that was not objectively unreasonable. All of the circuits in the country allowed a judge to determine the drug quantity for which the defendant was responsible by a preponderance of the evidence. Is 240 months. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Sanchez Cervantes was sentenced to 295 months on the basis of the drug quantity found by the judge during sentencing. 5 489 U.S. 288 (1989). 6 Id. at 310 11. 3353 exceptions exist if a new rule (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007163.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Walkowiak was convicted in West Virginia state court on a series of charges arising out of an aggravated robbery. Holding that the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) was not tolled during the pendency of Walkowiak's Rule 35(b) motion. During the pendency of which the AEDPA's one year statute of limitations is tolled. I. The straightforward issue presented for our consideration is whether a motion under Rule 35(b) constitutes an application for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0704p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will vacate the sentence and remand the cause to the district court. Payments were to be by periodic reimbursement for a fixed percentage of costs. NPL's computerized accounting system was designed to track all costs incurred and assign them to the proper contract so progress payment request forms could be automatically generated. Although documentation for costs incurred was necessary in case of an audit. The form itself was sufficient for payment. When NPL was awarded the Oxy Comm contract. It was experiencing cash flow problems which made it difficult to satisfy NPL's working capital and net worth requirements under its loan agreements. Monaco decided that by billing labor to the Oxy Comm contract before it was actually performed. This fixed price contract was also payable under the progress payment system. For reasons that are unclear. The DESI contract was also assigned job number 1040.[fn1] Because of this numerical duplication. Charges related to the Sperry overrun were billed to the DESI contract and resulted in improper progress payments. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/220565E3B343334C88256B7C00839E98/$file/9835897.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: On slip Opinion page 3361. Juan Sanchez Cervantes was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Sanchez Cervantes was the only one to testify. That Sanchez Cervantes was responsible for 280.6 grams of methamphetamine. Which was based on trial counsel's advice encouraging Sanchez Cervantes to testify at trial. While the case was pending in the district court. The court ruled that Sanchez Cervantes made a knowing and voluntary decision to testify and that his counsel's advice was based on a strategic decision that was not objectively unreasonable. All of the circuits in the country allowed a judge to determine the drug quantity for which the defendant was responsible by a preponderance of the evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Petitioner Mir Aimal Kasi was convicted by a Virginia state court jury of capital murder. Related firearm charges arising out of the slaying of two Central Intelligence Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-6211.wpd.html">CACY V. CITY OF CHICKASHA </A> The individual defendants were also employees of the City of Chickasha: Larry Shelton was the City Manager. Dany Sterling was the Chief of Police. Huggins were both police captains. Cacy that he was investigating the alleged misconduct of a police officer. Cacy would be interviewed as (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The officers were taking a break in the local Best Western coffee shop between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. They were alone with Ms. McCaskill was also joking with Ms. Pointing out that her pink bra strap was exposed. McCaskill asked whether it was pink all over. That's all he kept saying was that this information could be helpful to you. That was it. The substance of that conversation is as follows: Callahan: So how do we convince [Ms. Manuel was present in the coffee shop as follows: She just stopped by there. I would like to have a cup of coffee. He's so full of bullshit it is unbelievable. Callahan: Now this is old man Cacy we're talking about. He goes well is this like a see through bra or something. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927) </A> The court declined to address whether there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927) </A> The court declined to address whether there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0006n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Mitchell pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and was assigned a criminal history in Category IV in his Presentence Investigation Report. I. BACKGROUND Mitchell was arrested by Detroit Police on a weapons violation. His case was referred to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to Project Safe Neighborhoods. Should have been 37 to 46 months. The PSI further noted that there were no factors warranting a downward departure from this range. Mitchell stated that a downward departure was warranted because he had inadequate representation in the Wayne County court. The basis for this objection was that Mitchell's counsel in state court failed to recommend that he accept the two year plea offer. Which was arguably a more favorable sentence than he likely would receive in federal court. Contesting that a downward departure was warranted or even available. Defense counsel renewed his request for a downward departure on the ground that Mitchell was not adequately advised by his attorney in state court of the consequences of the case being referred for federal prosecution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0085p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The issues before us in this interlocutory appeal are (1) whether a death row inmate's claim against lethal injection itselfas opposed to a precursor procedureis properly considered to be a habeas action or one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When execution is imminent or at some earlier stage in state and federal 1 RICHARD WADE COOEY. (3) whether res judicata is a bar to a death row inmate's claim concerning the means and methods of execution when similar issues were raised. Or the specific claim could have been raised. The sodium thiopental is designed to anesthetize the prisoner and render him unconscious. Dennis and Cooey asserted that if the sodium thiopental is not administered properly and in sufficient dosage. They also maintained that to subject the prisoner to such excruciating pain while he is still conscious would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. They also alleged that the personnel attending to the executions are inadequately trained and. As to the issue of whether Cooey's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/01-10262.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. PETRIE (8/22/2002, NO. 01-10262) </A> Which were derived from a specified unlawful activity. A second count charged that all of the property involved in the criminal offense was subject to forfeiture. Finding that the sum of $1 million dollars in funds and other assets remaining at a bank in the Caribbean island of Antigua was property involved in the conspiracy offense or traceable to property so involved. The jury also found that additional property valued at $23 million was similarly involved in the conspiracy offense or traceable to property so involved. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1782p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> James Russell was convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. He was sentenced to two concurrent life terms. We will discuss each of Russell's challenges in turn. We will conclude that the jury instruction on the CCE count was erroneous and was not harmless error. We will reverse Russell's conviction under the CCE statute. We will affirm his convictions on all other counts. Facts Russell and four others were charged with conducting a continuing criminal enterprise (Count I). The drugs were repackaged and distributed to sellers in Pennsylvania. Russell's co conspirators were not permitted to sell drugs out of this location. Although there was no testimony relating to Russell's specific use of the guns during particular drug transactions. Russell was traveling with Mark Smith from New York where they had purchased cocaine from one of Russell's sources. When the car was stopped. Russell pleaded guilty to the gun charge and was released for time served. The court concluded that the quantity of drugs for which Russell was responsible could not be discerned from the trial testimony. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1819.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellee. Were in possession of firearms inside Pete & Mary's Bar. Because Officer Leedberg was involved in another case on August 14. The confidential informant told Officer Leedberg that Lewis and Starks were again in 3 possession of firearms in Pete & Mary's Bar. He stated that he had seen the firearms and the informant then described to Officer Leedberg how Lewis and Starks were dressed. The officers were in an unmarked police cruiser and were dressed in street clothes. 4 Officers Leedberg and Keating were rapidly approaching the D'Angelo's parking lot in their unmarked police car. Who was still conducting surveillance from the used car lot adjacent to the D'Angelo's parking lot. We note that the district court is entrusted with deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing and we will not overrule the refusal to convene an evidentiary hearing unless the district court is shown to have abused its discretion. Lewis and Starks have made no such showing. Evidentiary hearings on motions to suppress are required only when a defendant makes a sufficient showing that a warrantless search has occurred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzNjdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1367_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Erroneous denial of acceptance of responsibility points. agree only that the appellant's CHC was erroneous. We agree only with appellant's argument that his original CHC was wrongly calculated and remand for resentencing on that issue.2 We do not direct the remand to a different district 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 judge. His conviction for bankruptcy fraud. a) The SEC Action Appellant was the chairman. The bankruptcy court held that the $75 million judgment in favor of the SEC was 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 nondischargeable. 2000). This trust was funded by approximately $4 million in bearer bonds that appellant delivered to its trustee just before filing for bankruptcy. When its existence was discovered. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and the trust's situs was moved twice to evade detection. 181. Appellant was indicted and convicted in New Jersey of Id. at bankruptcy fraud for concealing the bearer bonds and casino chips and for money laundering of the bonds and their proceeds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1385p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is the second time that this matter has come before this court. Asserting that the Livingstones' claims were barred by an agreement said to have been made in 1990 in which the Livingstones waived any civil claims in exchange for the termination of a criminal prosecution of Frances Livingstone. Are called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></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 </A> 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. 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-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5016a.html">SEAFARERS INTL UN NA V. US COAST GUARD </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-2012.htm">98-2012 -- U.S. V. GARCIA -- 07/07/1999 </A> Defendant Appellant/Cross Appellee Eleuterio Garcia was arrested for trafficking cocaine. Was later charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. His sole defense was that paid government informant Saul Horcasitas entrapped him. Garcia's post trial motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial were denied. At sentencing. Garcia was sentenced to eighteen months in prison. As well as the acceptance of responsibility and minor participant adjustments. I. Entrapment as a Matter of Law Garcia argues that he was entrapped as a matter of law. The denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based on entrapment is reviewed de novo. Ct. 1098 (1998). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031280.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case was duly removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Interrogatories and affidavits . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972319.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F822E1DE5540855A8825708B0081F154/$file/0389037o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Dissent by Judge Winmill ORDER A misconduct complaint was filed against a district judge of this circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) (now 28 U.S.C. § 351(a)) in February 2003. The claim asserted in the complaint is that the judge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041722P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Harrison argues that he should have been sentenced under the 2002 Guidelines in effect when he committed the crimes on May 7. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011204.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The sole issue in this appeal is whether Appellant. Was arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in St. Croix and was charged by information with one count of illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported. The case was never investigated by. On the day Ntreh's trial was scheduled to begin. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/487AE14C5D6C4C8C882571530057D1CB/$file/0250355o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> AFSHARI The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Money is fungible. Giving money to a political organization that is not engaged in terrorist activities is constitutionally protected. The determination of whether or not an organization is engaged in terrorism is therefore crucial. Because it distinguishes activities that can be criminalized from those that are protected by the First Amendment. This case concerns the manner in which this distinction is drawn. The net result is that Rahmani is being criminally prosecuted. Almost certainly will be convicted. For contributing to an organization that has been designated as terrorist with none of the protections that are constitutionally UNITED STATES v. Rahmani will in all likelihood spend many years in prison for contributing to an organization whose designation the D.C. Or attempts or conspires to do so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8116.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Lee was arrested and charged by information in Wyoming state court with five criminal counts arising out of his sexual activities with several minor males over a period of years. When at the time [the victim] was less than 16 years of age and [Lee] w[as] at least four years <hr> older than [the victim]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superceding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1799.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Alleging that there was (1) . Nez was interested. Nez was aware that Guillermo was a government informant. In June 2000. Where Sanchez was to introduce Martí. I have one and a half . . . then by Sunday. I'll have another two . . . it would be three and a half. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI2NzgtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2678-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who is awaiting sentencing in the Western District of New York (Richard J. The Crime of Conviction Mohammed Abuhamra is a native of Yemen who has been a resident of the United States since 1975 and a citizen of this country since 1981. Until his remand on the order that 2 is the subject of this appeal. Abuhamra was arrested and charged with participating. Abuhamra was found guilty on three counts of unlawfully dealing in contraband cigarettes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2342(a). Four codefendants were simultaneously found guilty on the same or related charges. Abuhamra was permitted to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. He was permitted to travel to Yemen for more than three months to visit his dying father. The government advised the district court that the facility where Abuhamra's father was reportedly hospitalized was non existent. Defense counsel was apparently able to demonstrate that 3 the government was mistaken. Which states in pertinent part: [T]he judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0112A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Line 7 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-6254.htm">00-6254 -- BURLESON V. SAFFLE -- 01/24/2002 </A> Which is not clearly provided by Oklahoma law. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7141a.html">SHEPHERD MICHELE E. V. AMER BCAST CO INC </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984049.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Line 2 the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2C667A355EA2645D8825715D007EC2C3/$file/0250355o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Denying the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc is amended as follows: After the sentence. AFSHARI Fisher and Judge Berzon were recused from all proceedings in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/94-8323.opa.html">BLAIK V. UNITED STATES </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Blaik v. Was charged with using the mail to defraud optometrists by marketing a system to manufacture plastic prescription eyeglass lenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210218.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We must determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a code enforcement officer condemns an apartment complex and evicts the tenants without providing the tenants with contemporaneous notice of their right to appeal the condemnation decision. We must then determine whether the tenants' right to contemporaneous notice was established with such clarity at the time of eviction in this case that the chief of the City of Orlando's Code Enforcement Bureau is not entitled to qualified immunity. Threatened to declare the building unfit for human occupancy if the Our recitation of the facts is based primarily on the admitted facts contained in the parties' joint pretrial statement. To the extent that material facts are in dispute. As we must when the issue of qualified immunity is raised in a summary judgment motion. 92526 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000). 2 1 violations were not corrected.2 The owner was informed that the City of Orlando Code Enforcement Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F416371F2333CA0E88256AE2007CDC6C/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50ED5D88FD07F49C8825707A007D8401/$file/0310548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the convictions in all respects and remand on sentencing pursuant to United States v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The government brought Smith and Bates1 to trial for Smith and Bates were tried as co defendants with another alleged participant in the conspiracy. Wadsworth was acquitted by the jury. 1 13076 UNITED STATES v. Probably certain personal items were not exempt. Numerous clients testified at trial how defendants (usually Smith2) advised them that they did not have to pay taxes once they paid the defendants to establish a UBO. Bates told Denby and her husband that no taxes need be paid on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/94-8323.opa.html">BLAIK V. UNITED STATES </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Blaik v. Was charged with using the mail to defraud optometrists by marketing a system to manufacture plastic prescription eyeglass lenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024525.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were found guilty by a jury in the Northern District of West Virginia of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). West was also convicted The conspiracy charged in Count 2 of the first indictment was dismissed by the trial court. Jackson was also convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848 (Count 1). I. Andrew Charles Jackson was a drug dealer in Martinsburg. By this time Jackson was under investigation by law enforcement authorities. Jackson discussed in the presence of both Nelson and Patterson that Miller was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Novitsky was exiting the vehicle. Novitsky was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and. Novitsky was in fact intoxicated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955433.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> No. 95 5433 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: James Stanley Caldwell was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on three counts of firearms and narcotics violations. James Caldwell was standing outside in an area of Charlotte. Caldwell was holding a bottle of beer when he saw three Charlotte police officers approach in a patrol car. Which was identified as a .38 caliber. The substance found in the film canister was transported to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Laboratory. Caldwell was placed under arrest for state law violations and taken into custody. The state charges were later dismissed. 2 On April 4. Caldwell was named in a three count federal indictment for: (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm. After the federal indictment was returned against Caldwell. About a month before his trial was scheduled to begin. Never insinuated that the substance tested was not actually cocaine base. He was unaware that Caldwell's case was going to proceed in federal court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-2274.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. CIAPPONI </A> (2) whether defendant's two prior convictions should have been considered as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3164.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> INTRODUCTION Claro Rivera Nevarez was charged in United States District Court for the District of Kansas with illegal reentry into the United States after removal. Rivera Nevarez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that subsequent Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BCEAD60A11F3FDA58825731500839F59/$file/0630192.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Assuming we have jurisdiction. That in some respects the district court's pretrial orders were improper. That the government had initially stated it would have been prepared to try the case in September 2005. It cannot now credibly claim that it is necessary to continue adding witnesses to an already unwieldy list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-3187.htm">02-3187 -- U.S. V. BAILEY -- 04/25/2003 </A> All the partners were family members and/or close friends of Bailey's. The Partnership consisted of Bailey and eleven partners. The Partnership Agreement was year to year. The Managing Partner shall have no authority to invest in and shall be specifically prohibited from investing Partnership funds in real estate. None of these transactions were authorized by the Partnership Agreement or the other partners. Bailey also apparently used funds transferred from the Partnership accounts to his personal accounts to pay for a new home he built for his family. Bailey was required by the Partnership Agreement to provide quarterly reports to the partners. They also failed to reveal that Bailey was investing in futures. The Partnership capital was something less than $2000. The suit sought termination of the Partnership and to have an accounting. The two suits were certified as class actions and were consolidated. The civil suits resulted in a settlement. Bailey was indicted in a twenty two count indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-3104a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0293p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Stokes Creek canal is a channelized stream in western Tennessee. This project is known as the Stokes Creek Restoration Project (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2BB9BB2F7E1B07E88256E5A00707D05/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2259.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414886.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> He also contends that his sentence was unreasonable under United States v. I. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317) </A> The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else. Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317) </A> The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else. Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3040a.html">USA V. ERIC A. HICKS </A> With her on the brief were Roscoe C. The Government had tainted his trial and made his continued incarceration unlawful. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0126p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Defendant appellant Richard Nance was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court determined that Nance was an armed career criminal and sentenced him to 235 months. Which was at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. As a result of a routine patdown of McPhearson during which drugs were discovered. While the warrant was being obtained. Nance was subsequently indicted and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-6183.htm">01-6183 -- JOHNSON V. CHAMPION -- 04/26/2002 </A> Three bank employees and one bank customer were killed. Three other bank customers were shot and severely wounded. There was an unsuccessful attempt to shoot an infant girl. Johnson and Jay Wesley Neill were arrested and charged with the offenses in the District Court of Comanche County. Johnson and Neill were tried together in May 1985 and each was convicted of four counts of first degree murder. Concluding that Johnson and Neill were improperly tried together because Johnson's and Neill's defenses were mutually antagonistic </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/958B0BDE14EF6F2988256C36008195E2/$file/9899033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The jury was instructed to determine whether the murder with which Valerio was charged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/97-3112b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief was Wilma A. P.s. (1997).1 This court was convened en banc to consider whether a district court also has authority under the Guidelines to depart from the applicable range when the government declines to file such a motion. I A district court is generally required to impose a criminal sentence from within the range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. s 3553(b). That range is calculated by identifying the guideline keyed to the defendant's offense conduct. All references are to the 1997 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Which is the edition governing defendant's case. The district court held that such a motion was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/031964p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> At issue is whether a criminal sentence served in an alternative housing facility such as a halfway house can quali fy as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0116p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. INTRODUCTION Defendant/Appellant Carson Beasley 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). Was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment as an armed career criminal with three prior The Honorable Gerald E. Was derived from a state court judgment that listed the offense of conviction as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4042.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Wilken now appeals his sentence of 235 months' imprisonment on grounds that the district court incorrectly calculated the United States Sentencing Guidelines range (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947024.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Court of Civil Appeals1 are elected to office in at large partisan elections. 2 In this case. White The judicial power of Alabama is vested exclusively in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/98-5066.htm">98-5066 -- U.S. V. MARTIN -- 01/18/2000 </A> Circuit Judges. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0409n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Petitioner Robert Drew was convicted in Tennessee state court of theft of property valued at $1. The district court modified and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to whom the case was referred. Petitioner argues that (1) the court below erred in not suppressing the identification evidence because the showup procedure was impermissibly suggestive and the identification was not independently reliable and (2) the trial court's flight instruction deprived Petitioner of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. Linda Capley was working at Lavert's Market in West Nashville. She was waiting on a woman in the market. She was cashing several checks and had just opened a new bundle of twenty dollar bills. Was on the telephone when Petitioner came into the store. She saw the money in his hand as he was drawing his hand back from the register. Officer Jeff Burnette was dispatched to Lavert's Market after a call came in reporting the incident. He was instructed by an eyewitness who saw Petitioner run from the store with the money in his hands that he ran to the field near the grain silo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1185p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Died before this opinion was filed. Whose first degree murder conviction and death sentence were affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. When Flamer's appeal was initially presented to this panel. He argued: (1) that his confession was obtained in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and therefore should have been suppressed. (2) that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. (5) that the district court record should have been expanded to include the criminal record of Flamer's accomplice. The fourth of these arguments was similar to an argument that was raised in Bailey v. Which was heard by another panel of our court while Flamer's appeal was under consideration by this panel. Before a panel opinion was filed in either case. The panel that initially heard Flamer's appeal discusses and rejects all of Flamer's arguments other than the argument that was considered by the court in banc. The latter issue is addressed and rejected in a separate opinion that is being filed simultaneously on behalf of the in banc court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/01-3040a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With her on the brief were Roscoe C. While this motion was still pending before the District Court. Hicks' proposed supplement was there fore stricken as untimely. It is this ruling that is at issue here. That motion is barred by s 2255's one year </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTMyOTgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3298-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Facts Global is one of the largest independent providers of pay phones in New York City. Which is the City's regulatory agency for telecommunications. As of 2002 there were 65. Of which about half were subject to City franchise and permit requirements. The Department observed that even if Massie's criminal activities were unrelated to Global's business. Global also proposed in an effort to ameliorate any misgivings the Department might have regarding Global's integrity to separate Massie from the operations of the company and to place his ownership interest in an irrevocable family trust. They declared that their regulation of pay phones was not prohibited because another provision of the Act permits </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/004082P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Including confessions that were involuntary and obtained in violation of Miranda and Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Should have declared a mistrial sua 2 sponte in response to remarks made in the government's closing arguments. We hold that defendants have shown no prejudice to their case resulting from violations of the Vienna Convention. Therefore are entitled to no relief on the basis of those violations. Plutarco Tello were found guilty of (1) conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Sinisterra was found guilty on one count of criminal forfeiture. I. The events leading up to the murder which precipitated defendants' arrests are as follows. He was assisted by Héberth Andres Borja Molina ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-3112b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief was Wilma A. P.s. (1997).1 This court was convened en banc to consider whether a district court also has authority under the Guidelines to depart from the applicable range when the government declines to file such a motion. We hold that it does not. I A district court is generally required to impose a criminal sentence from within the range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. s 3553(b). That range is calculated by identifying the guideline keyed to the defendant's offense conduct. All references are to the 1997 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Which is the edition governing defendant's case. See U.S.S.G. s 1B1.11. The district court held that such a motion was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/002855.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The issue before us is whether we can hear its appeal. Pharis was the CEO and president of Hudson. The trial was scheduled to start on Monday. Arguing that the proposed evidence was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CB8FA31A62D995A8825710800817129/$file/0510073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Defendants are charged with possessing stolen trade secrets in violation of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2416.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> LLP was on brief. Was on brief. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-1287.htm">97-1287 -- U.S. V. MCVEIGH -- 09/08/1998 </A> McVeigh ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9F548C4220E69988256E8C005AC501/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The evidence of Allen's guilt for the crimes of conviction is overwhelming. Is that Allen's representation at the penalty phase of his trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Trial counsel admits he did nothing to prepare for the penalty phase until after the guilty verdicts were rendered. In what little time was available. There is a reasonable probability that the result of Allen's penalty phase would have been a sentence other than death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5A1535FB482F685E88256F930058B6D7/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9426.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GRIGSBY </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court instructed that general intent was all that was required to violate the AECA. Because we conclude that the district court's AECA jury instructions were erroneous and incomplete and that the jury's verdicts as to the other wildlife statutes were contrary to the jury instructions and evidence. That he had never issued export permits for African elephant ivory and was unfamiliar with the process. Ashton transferred the original certificates of ownership for two of the ivory tusks. The Canadian Wildlife Service was satisfied that. Because the harvesting was before applicability of CITES. A Canadian export CITES permit was issued on October 20. Since the check was payable to Grigsby Taxidermy instead of Ashton and exceeded the final sales price. Where the certified check was converted to a Canadian bank draft payable to Ashton in Canadian funds. When the United States funds were converted to Canadian funds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/95-5405.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PIELAGO (2/17/1998, NO. 95-5405) </A> Circuit Judge: Appellants Maria Varona and Adrian Pielago were jointly indicted. She contends that the indictment against her should have been dismissed. We do not believe that there was any error involving the proffer agreement. We are convinced there was no plain error. Pielago challenges both his conviction and sentence. We find merit in his contention that his sentence is due to be reversed. Jose was arrested after surveillance indicated he was about to sell eight kilograms of cocaine that he had just received from Novaton to a drug dealer named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012398.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The issue before us is a limited one. The only issue is whether appellant. Such a determination is provided for lawful permanent residents charged as alien terrorists. S 1226(c) (2001). 1 The petition is directed to Charles W. To avoid confusion we will. Patel is a 55 year old native and citizen of India. Patel was convicted upon a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri of the offense of harboring an undocumented alien in violation of INA S 274(a)(1)(A)(iii). Patel's conviction was based on his employment of the alien. Both in his brief and in oral argument (without contradiction by the government) and the government's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the District Court is in agreement. The government stated that it believed the home probation followed the prison sentence but there is some ambiguity in the record. 4 Although persons who are confined to a penal institution for 180 days or more cannot establish good moral character. Patel has not lost his eligibility for naturalization because his jail sentence was less than 180 days. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/95-5405.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PIELAGO (2/17/1998, NO. 95-5405) </A> Circuit Judge: Appellants Maria Varona and Adrian Pielago were jointly indicted. She contends that the indictment against her should have been dismissed. We do not believe that there was any error involving the proffer agreement. We are convinced there was no plain error. Pielago challenges both his conviction and sentence. We find merit in his contention that his sentence is due to be reversed. Jose was arrested after surveillance indicated he was about to sell eight kilograms of cocaine that he had just received from Novaton to a drug dealer named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1384p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Miller filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for malicious prosecution against numerous defendants after a motion by the state to nolle prosequi her criminal charges was granted. Who was arrested with her. The district court reviewing Miller's malicious prosecution claim granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that Miller failed to make out a prima facie case of malicious prosecution because she was unable to meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating that the criminal charges against her were terminated favorably. We conclude that a grant of nolle prosequi is insufficient to support a claim of malicious prosecution only in circumstances where the accused herself enters into a compromise with the prosecution in which she surrenders something of value to obtain the dismissal or where the accused formally accepts the grant of nolle prosequi in exchange for her knowing. I. John Hilfirty was terminated from his position as a general manager of a recycling center operated by the Lycoming Valley Association for the Deaf (LVAD) on May 7. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2188.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellee. He alleges that his prosecution was invalid. That the evidence was insufficient. Conclude that the evidence adduced was insufficient to establish that Rivera knew that the vessel's condition was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9426.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GRIGSBY </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court instructed that general intent was all that was required to violate the AECA. Because we conclude that the district court's AECA jury instructions were erroneous and incomplete and that the jury's verdicts as to the other wildlife statutes were contrary to the jury instructions and evidence. That he had never issued export permits for African elephant ivory and was unfamiliar with the process. Ashton transferred the original certificates of ownership for two of the ivory tusks. The Canadian Wildlife Service was satisfied that. Because the harvesting was before applicability of CITES. A Canadian export CITES permit was issued on October 20. Since the check was payable to Grigsby Taxidermy instead of Ashton and exceeded the final sales price. Where the certified check was converted to a Canadian bank draft payable to Ashton in Canadian funds. When the United States funds were converted to Canadian funds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0067p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This sentence was calculated using a 50% ratio for converting the 1 No. 04 6428 United States v. Martin argues that (1) the ratio set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines commentary for converting the precursor chemical pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine is invalid both because it does not comply with the statutory mandate and because it is arbitrary and capricious. The Act instructed the United States Sentencing Commission to (1) . . . review and amend its guidelines to provide for increased penalties such that those penalties corresponded to the quantity of controlled substance that could reasonably have been manufactured using the quantity of ephedrine. The quantity of controlled substance that could reasonably have been manufactured shall be determined by using a table of manufacturing conversion ratios for ephedrine. Such that 2 grams of the chemical is equivalent to 1 gram of methamphetamine. That ratio was inserted into the tables in § 2D1.1. Which already established that 1 gram of methamphetamine is to be treated as the equivalent of 20 kilograms of marijuana for sentencing purposes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/e5ac7e53df77c2d388256a1e0061aeaf/$FILE/0010219.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> (3) by failing to instruct the jury that the government must prove that he knew an aircraft was or could be in flight and would be endangered or that he intended to endanger an aircraft in flight. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Louis Airport where she was to take a Trans World Airlines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-3077a.html">U.S. V. SONNI WILSON </A> Was on the briefs for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5157.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff Julie Spencer was struck by a vehicle while walking through an Oklahoma Wal Mart parking lot. They argue Wal Mart breached its duty to (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Wal Mart did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014468.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> POOLE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that Poole's prior convictions were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964813.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He would not have found probable cause and issued the warrants. The government appeals contending (1) that the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous. The warrants were supported by probable cause. Because we find no clear error in fact finding and agree with the magistrate judge who originally issued the warrants that as redacted they are not supported by probable cause. Both of whom were part of a joint statefederal task force. Was also identified in the Master Affidavit as having participated in the investigation. The Master Affidavit asserted that there was probable cause to believe that criminal fraud had been committed at the eight Home Health locations. Which were executed on January 19. Approximately 5 million documents were seized. The Master Affidavit was unsealed and examined by Home Health and its attorneys. The motion was assigned to Magistrate Judge Denson. Arguing that Home Health had not established that the Master Affidavit would be insufficient to show probable cause if the alleged falsehoods and omissions were corrected. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971723.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct96/95-9059.ma2.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re E.I. That were tried before the district court in 1993. The primary issue at trial was whether Benlate 50 DF </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5374a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1669p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> I.H. contends that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the transfer procedure. That the district court's factual findings were insufficient to support its decision to transfer him. It is not necessary to reach the sufficiency of the court's factual findings. I. I.H. was born on November 6. When I.H. was 16 years old. We nevertheless have jurisdiction over the appeal from the district court's transfer order. I.H. was armed with a handgun. Sat in the back seat of the car with the gun trained on the Kalovs who were seated next to him. I.H. fired one shot during the incident but neither of the Kalovs was hit. Although the car's windshield was shattered. I.H. was subsequently identified as the leader of the duo who first entered the store and brandished a gun in the face of the store's employees. The accomplice was still at large when this appeal was taken. I.H. was arrested and charged by information with carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. Was arrested for the November 15. He was also charged with local offenses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/987416.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> He is not challenging the merits of the state conviction for 2 which he is presently incarcerated. He contends that because a former conviction for which he is no longer incarcerated or under any parole restraint was tainted by a constitutional infirmity. That conviction was improperly considered when he was sentenced for his second offense. We must first decide whether the conviction of hisfirst offense was considered by the sentencing judge in the matter for which he is presently incarcerated. If we find such jurisdiction we must then examine his first conviction to determine whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to competent counsel. If we agree with this contention then we must decide what remedy is available to him. When the local police were called to a high school graduation party at the home of Carol Ann Frank. Testimony was presented that Appellant attended the party along with his brothers. Apparently picked sides and a grand donnybrook was had by all until Carol Ann. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/971419.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The issue in this appeal is whether aliens who have committed serious crimes in this country may be detained in custody for prolonged periods when the country of origin refuses to allow the individual's return. We conclude that such detention is permitted by the relevant statutes. Is constitutional if the government provides individualized periodic review of the alien's eligibility for release on parole. We will grant a writ of habeas corpus subject to the right of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to promptly institute appropriate administrative action. Petitioner is a native of Vietnam who was paroled 1 into 1. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/012783p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The en banc District Court held that reciprocal discipline was warranted but limited the term of Surrick's suspension to thirty months. Surrick argues that the imposition of reciprocal discipline was inappropriate because the state proceedings upon which the District Court relied violated his rights of due process and free speech. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. I. Factual Background and Procedural History The facts relevant to Surrick's underlying state court suspension are drawn from the opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Report and Recommendation issued by the initial District Court panel. Surrick and his wife were defendants in Leedom v. A case which involved the foreclosure of a mortgage for which they were sureties. The issue of liability was submitted to the court. In relevant part: It is believed and averred by Movant Surrick that Judge Bradley was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1598.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellee. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct96/95-9059.ma2.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re E.I. That were tried before the district court in 1993. The primary issue at trial was whether Benlate 50 DF </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were convicted and sentenced for The Honorable James L. Hernandez was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder by supporting and implementing a plan to shoot down United States civilian aircraft outside of Cuban and United States airspace. That the pervasive community prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government and its agents and the publicity surrounding the trial and other community events combined to create a situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial.1 We agree. Medina contend that the evidence was insufficient on the counts relating to violations of the Foreign Services Registration Act. Our review of the evidence at trial is more extensive than is typical for consideration of an appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of venue. This is so because the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate venue considerations. Medina were arrested on a criminal complaint on 12 September 1998. Were subsequently indicted with nine codefendants for conspiring to act as agents of the Republic of Cuba without registering with the Attorney General of the United States and to defraud the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411463.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was admitted to the United States in September of 1990 as a non immigrant visitor for pleasure. Alim was arrested for assaulting Lora. Adjudication was withheld. Alim was sentenced to nine months' probation. Alim were interviewed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in January of 1999. Alim was indicted in federal court for making false statements at his INS interview. Alim was convicted on the federal false statements charge on April 12. Alleging that he was also subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) as an alien convicted after admission to the U.S. of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude (i.e. Alim also explained that he was planning on filing an application for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Had yet to do so because Elizabeth's visa petition was pending. Alim was approved. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0196p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With this case we decide whether Petitioner Appellant Frank Howard ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-5101.html">UNITED STATES V. MCDERMOTT </A> This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. ž Honorable Wesley E. He makes the following arguments:3 (1) The district court violated his Sixth Amendment right of self representation by refusing to let him participate in bench conferences when he was proceeding pro se with standby counsel. (2) he was subjected to double jeopardy by being criminally prosecuted after the government had filed civil forfeiture proceedings against him to which he had responded. (5) the evidence was insufficient to show that Mr. McDermott's Sixth Amendment right to self representation was violated. Briefs were filed on his behalf by his counsel from the Federal Public Defender's office. Ct. 1234 (1994). was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The FBI notified him that it was proceeding administratively to forfeit the property on grounds that it had been used to transport a controlled substance. Was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. McDermott was charged with continuing criminal enterprise. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0275a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Claiming that his Rule 35 motion extended the initial filing period and that he was entitled to an additional extension for excusable neglect. Dotz was indicted on two charges: a felony count of possessing TMFPP with the intent to distribute and a misdemeanor count of possessing cocaine. He later sought a downward departure based on his acceptance of responsibility and because his criminal behavior was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1693.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> The primary issue involves whether the relevant provision of FTAIA is jurisdictional or whether it states an additional element of a Sherman Act claim. What the outcome will be. Plaintiffs United Phosphorus and Shroff's United Chemicals are chemical manufacturers based in India. Miller & Associates is an American firm. Which was involved in a joint venture with the Indian plaintiffs. The defendants are Angus Chemical and its officers. Which we will refer to collectively as Angus. The issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction was first raised soon after the case was filed in 1994. Angus' Rule 12(b)(1) motion was denied. That allegation is consistent with a report from the Centers for Disease Control. The parties tell us that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/00-5074.htm">00-5074 -- U.S. V. OVERHOLT -- 10/10/2002 </A> Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/022898P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-3113.htm">00-3113 -- JOHNSON V. MCKUNE -- 04/15/2002 </A> Noble Leroy Johnson was convicted in the district court of Butler County. The District Court found the Sandstrom issue not to have been defaulted or waived because Sandstrom was not decided until after Johnson's conviction was final and because he had raised the issue in his first motion and appealed its denial to the highest state court. Johnson v. The court held that the ruling in Sandstrom was not retroactively applicable on collateral review under Teague v. Thomas and Darlene Woodyard were murdered in El Dorado. The Woodyards were friends of Noble Leroy Johnson and his wife Linda. The bodies were discovered three days later when the Woodyards' landlady entered the house. Her husband told her he was going to go back and kill them. A witness said he had seen Noble Johnson crouching by the river behind the Woodyards' house the day before the bodies were discovered. Johnson said that because the doors were locked from the inside. Johnson said he was angry at this. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1FB3A0798C5F718488256A2900575A67/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/325A563427ADD31788256B6800042005/$file/9999009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: Delete from close of the opinion. Who is on death row in California for the murder of Kevin Thorpe in 1981. Because we find that Silva's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present potentially compelling mitigating evidence to the jury. Were college students returning from winter break when they passed through Madeline on their way to Oregon. Thorpe was then chained to a tree while Craig was taken inside a cabin and repeatedly sexually assaulted. Which were each buried in shallow graves. Craig was shot twice and killed by the side of a road. Murder charges against Thomas were dropped. He was eventually sentenced to eleven years and four months imprisonment for participating in the kidnaping. He was convicted of murdering both Thorpe and Craig and sentenced to life without parole. He was resentenced to life imprisonment. Silva's trial was held in San Bernardino County in January 1982. That Thorpe was murdered while Thomas was having consensual sex with Craig. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40035D33D5CC7A068825705E0053133F/$file/0450193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Factual Background William Lewis Hall was on supervised release when. As was her practice. HALL these injuries were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56A206C421C5CAAD88257314005938B7/$file/0630447.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Any person who knowingly and willfully makes a materially false statement to the federal government is subject to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). The probation officer is required by law to include such a statement in the PSR and to submit the PSR to the judge. The probation officer followed up on Defendant's statement and reported in the PSR: The defendant informed this officer that he was enlisted in the U.S. The defendant's highest rank was E5. The defendant advised that he was a field artillery spotter/scout and was based at Camp Lejeune. At the time of this writing documentation or a DD214 was not available to this officer. The defendant's father informed that the defendant was in the U.S. Defendant was not put under oath. What I'm going to do is put you on probation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A44BAFB1546008588256E5A00707ADD/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DFBFA331758B76888256D3C0073F2F1/$file/0299000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Lawrence Bittaker was convicted in California state court of multiple murders and was sentenced to death. The question presented to us is the scope of the habeas petitioner's waiver: Does it extend only to litigation of the federal habeas petition. Or is the attorney client privilege waived for all time and all purposes including the possible retrial of the petitioner. The parties will immediately advise the court of any future rulings in Osband v. ER at 8 9 (underscored portion in handscript). 2 The parties spill much ink on the subsidiary question whether the district court would have had discretion to enter the protective order even if the disclosed materials lost their privilege for all purposes. WOODFORD 7641 Jurisdiction The challenged order is not a final judgment. Yet the parties agree that it is reviewable as a collateral order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The matter is closer than the concurrence of the parties would suggest. The protective order is. At that time we will know much more about the practical effect of the order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8248496AA5A05B3A88256FB90007FAEC/$file/0335093.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff Mark Lasar was involved in a rollover accident. The sanctions were intended to reimburse Lasar for unnecessary expenses and attorney's fees. Were the sanctions. We also must decide whether the settlement of the dispute between Ford and Lasar while these appeals were pending renders them moot. Since Sutter was not a party to the settlement agreement. Steven Lasar was severely injured when he was ejected from his Ford Ranger during a rollover accident. The magistrate judge issued two Although Lasar does not have a personal stake in the outcome of this appeal. The second prevented Ford from telling the jury that Lasar was not wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident. Sutter made two comments during his opening statement that the district court ultimately determined were violations of the pretrial orders. Something else was going on. Lasar was what we call a free floating body. His body was banting about inside the car as it was rolling over. All that is. Is something spinning around like a yo yo on a string. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AC84EF60783D73D888256E5A00707AC4/$file/0010219.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> (3) by failing to instruct the jury that the government must prove that he knew an aircraft was or could be in flight and would be endangered or that he intended to endanger an aircraft in flight. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Louis Airport where she was to take a Trans World Airlines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BFCEF49FA6FE58DE88257015004EF76E/$file/0415017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We reverse the district court's decision and hold that the particular application of Nevada's time limits and tolling provisions in Collier's case was not adequately established prior to his appeal. Standard of Review Federal district court decisions denying 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petitions for procedural default are reviewed de novo. Factual findings underlying the decision are reviewed for clear error. Mixed questions of law and fact involving constitutional issues are reviewed de novo. While McConnell was working with Nevada's Consolidated Narcotics Unit ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C425EBCCACE9AA2A88256B530000089D/$file/9999009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who is on death row in California for the murder of Kevin Thorpe in 1981. Because we find that Silva's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present potentially compelling mitigating evidence to the jury. Were college students returning from winter break when they passed through Madeline on their way to Oregon. Thorpe was then chained to a tree while Craig was taken inside a cabin and repeatedly sexually assaulted. Which were each buried in shallow graves. Craig was shot twice and killed by the side of a road. Murder charges against Thomas were dropped. He was eventually sentenced to eleven years and four months imprisonment for participating in the kidnaping. He was convicted of murdering both Thorpe and Craig and sentenced to life without parole. He was resentenced to life imprisonment. 1531 Because of publicity. Silva's trial was held in San Bernardino County in January 1982. That Thorpe was murdered while Thomas was having consensual sex with Craig. The three men were standing over a barrel in which some of Thorpe's belongings were being burned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E5AC7E53DF77C2D388256A1E0061AEAF/$file/0010219.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> (3) by failing to instruct the jury that the government must prove that he knew an aircraft was or could be in flight and would be endangered or that he intended to endanger an aircraft in flight. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Louis Airport where she was to take a Trans World Airlines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/ac84ef60783d73d888256e5a00707ac4/$FILE/0010219.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> (3) by failing to instruct the jury that the government must prove that he knew an aircraft was or could be in flight and would be endangered or that he intended to endanger an aircraft in flight. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Louis Airport where she was to take a Trans World Airlines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/99-3077a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were Wilma A. The fraud was necessarily short lived: Use of an actual account would quickly trigger reaction either by the true holder or by bank personnel on the alert for suspicious activity such as unusually large cash withdrawals. Wilson was first arrested in 1996 after bank investigators alerted the police. He was charged with six counts of bank fraud (18 U.S.C. s 1344). We have already held. That to support a statutory jurisdictional link for a specific criminal act it is enough that the evidence show that the act had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0946n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The parties have no agreement as to the Criminal History Category applicable in this case. Defendant understands that the Criminal History Category will be determined by the Court after the completion of a Pre Sentence Investigation by the U.S. Defendant understands that the recommendations of the parties will not be binding upon the Court. That the Court alone will decide the applicable sentencing range. Whether there is any basis to depart from that range. Defendant will not have the right to withdraw such a plea if the Court does not accept any sentencing recommendations made on Defendant's behalf or if Defendant is otherwise dissatisfied with the sentence. 17. The ground for his motion was the erosion of the attorney client relationship. On the ground that Defendant was misled by her previous counsel as to her criminal history calculation. Defendant knew that there were no guarantees with respect to her criminal history calculation. She knew there were no guarantees with respect to her actual sentence as a result. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C5F674270755553B88256E9F00504FC6/$file/0299009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which was filed March 5. Is amended as follows: WEBSTER v. It is undisputed that Webster removed the keys to the automobile from the victim's pocket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4082.htm">99-4082 -- FEMEDEER V. HAUN -- 08/28/2000 </A> Apparently wishing to prevent widespread disclosure of his status as a sex offender. Proceeding under a pseudonym in federal court is. We have recognized that there may be exceptional circumstances warranting some form of anonymity in judicial proceedings. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained: Lawsuits are public events. The risk that a plaintiff may suffer some embarrassment is not enough. Doe v. We have held that it is proper to weigh the public interest in determining whether some form of anonymity is warranted. . It is difficult to apply legal principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The disclosure of Appellee's identity in the caption of this lawsuit is not coterminous to the harm he is seeking to avoid by filing this claim. The posting of his identity and other personal information on the Internet is likely to be more extensive than is the exposure resulting from his name on the caption of this lawsuit. Those using the courts must be prepared to accept the public scrutiny that is an inherent part of public trials. Within twenty days. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948323.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was charged with using the mail to defraud optometrists by marketing a system to manufacture plastic prescription eyeglass lenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Trial was scheduled for February 11. He was apprehended and charged in a separate indictment for knowingly failing to appear for trial. Blaik's sole objection to the restitution amount was that it did not reflect the value of the items actually received by the victims during the course of his fraudulent scheme. 623.88.1 Neither the PSR nor the judgment and commitment order state that restitution was imposed pursuant to the Federal Probation Act. Which subsequently was reduced to eighteen months because of a computation mistake. This sentence was to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in the mail fraud case. He did not argue that the victims were not entitled to restitution or that it should have been limited to the counts of conviction. Blaik filed a motion to correct his sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.3 Arguing that his restitution was unlawful under Hughey. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/03-6057.htm">03-6057 -- GAMBLE V. CALBONE -- 07/13/2004 </A> We also granted COA on the issue whether copy fees charged by a district court to obtain a criminal record and transcript to be used in preparing and filing an application for post conviction relief are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/033648P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The defendant's base offense level is 20. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953194P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. BACKGROUND This is a cautionary tale. The factual record is sparse. Were in St. The Muhammeds were separated and each was taken to be interviewed. Miranda warnings were given. for the Nation of Islam. Which was then seized. Muhammed was asked if she had any cash. $22. Muhammed told the agents that he worked He used Agents found A drug dog was called and alerted She was uncertain as to where her husband had The drug dog alerted to that cash as When asked if the money could have come from drug sales. Which was also seized. For the return of the Muhammeds' property. the attorney's DEA receipts of both seizures were attached. affidavit to the DEA. 990 was mailed. To both the That notice was received by them and explained that to contest The notice also explained how to obtain the forfeiture they needed to submit personally signed claims and a cost bond to the DEA by a date certain. waiver of the cost bond. follow these directions. They amended their complaint to include On November the notice of seizure and to include personal affidavits by each of them asserting that the money in question was lawfully acquired. 3. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/03-3043a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A5CB14182027A465882571FB00555995/$file/0474268.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Pleaded guilty in 1996 to sexual abuse of a minor.1 He was sentenced to 75 months in prison and 120 months of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0B69F0CC78CB54688256E4D007E5C64/$file/0299009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Whether Larry Webster's due process rights were denied by a judicial expan WEBSTER v. We hold that they were not and reverse the judgment of the district court. I This is a capital case arising out of the murder of William Burke. Larry Junior Webster was camping near Sacramento with five associates. The group was aware that the police were looking for them. The others were to dig a grave and clean up the campsite. Because the campsite was by a creek some distance below the road. They saw the four men coming down a trail from the levee to the campsite: Williams was in the lead. Was eventually stopped for a traffic violation. The conviction of murder in the first degree was predicated on both a finding of premeditation and the felony murder rule. After his petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied. P. 54(b) was appropriate in order to promote judicial economy and conduct a single evidentiary hearing if one should become appropriate. We therefore have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7FF4848D98F819858825727D00024878/$file/0556596.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Prohibits the prosecutor's mention that defendant requested counsel to show he was able to cooperate in his NGUYEN v. GARCIA 1651 own defense not at the guilt phase of trial but during a hearing to determine whether the defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. We conclude that the state court decision finding Wainwright inapplicable to a state court competency hearing is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/952430P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 2 1 We do not have before us a full explanation of the relationship among the players involved in this case. We do know that the underlying bankruptcy was a Chapter 7 filing by Gary Joe Dean and Lucille Among the persons and entities involved are a company known as Hi Tech Coatings. Who at times relevant to this appeal was serving as Hi Tech's president. The TRO was continued. The check was made payable to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1098.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on brief. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E51D101FCFA0663588256D2100566CE8/$file/0110415.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We hold that Rule 11 plea colloquies involving felonies are additional duties that may be delegated to magistrate judges for findings and recommendation with defendants' consent. That de novo review of the magistrate judges' findings and recommendations is required if. Reyna Tapia was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor. He was ordered removed from the United States on October 19. Reyna Tapia was discovered in Arizona and charged with unlawful re entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) enhanced by § 1326(b)(2). With violating the conditions of his supervised release that he was serving for his prior sexual abuse conviction. Attorney consented in writing to have the guilty plea taken by a United States Magistrate Judge. She made findings that the plea was knowing and voluntary. That there was a factual basis for it. Directed preparation of a presentence report.1 When the presentence report was submitted. That the district court failed to make a factual deterThe order reflects that de novo review was conducted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3379.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> A Wisconsin state jury found Armstrong guilty of first degree reckless homicide and he was sentenced as an adult to a prison term not to exceed 20 years. Armstrong's petition for review to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was denied. Jeremy Armstrong was a high school student with more than his share of challenges. His time was divided between his separated parents his mother Cheryl. Who was mentally ill. Who was a crack addict. Was also a crack addict and repeatedly threatened Armstrong with both physical and sexual violence. Weapons were stashed all around his father's house. The electricity was sometimes cut off because of unpaid bills. Armstrong was an honor student with a perfect attendance record. Armstrong was arrested and charged with first degree intentional homicide. Under which adult criminal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over juveniles age fifteen or older charged with firstdegree intentional homicide. Three Wisconsin state trial court decisions are at issue here. Both that evidentiary motion and the underlying suppression motion were denied by the state court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0036p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because the decision of the Tennessee courts to allow prior testimony of a witness deemed unavailable for trial was neither </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1879.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> The facts are essentially uncontradicted. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4103_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> States that Graham was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for felony murder. The district court denied his petition on the same ground as had the State court that Graham was convicted of only one crime and therefore his sentence could not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. That Graham's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was not timely filed and. That even if it were. Because we agree with the government that Graham's petition for habeas corpus was not timely filed. We have no cause to comment on the question of double jeopardy. (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed. If the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action. (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court. Or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE0MDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1407_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Valentin similarly challenges his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds and also claims that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise a preponderance challenge to his Guidelines calculation. Whose conviction was based on a jury verdict. Whose conviction was based on a guilty plea. We agree with Garcia that the agent's opinion testimony at trial as to Garcia's culpable role in the charged crimes was not properly received. Although the government argues that this testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 as a lay opinion summary of anticipated evidence. We conclude that the necessary predicates of that rule were not satisfied in this case. Because this evidentiary error was harmless. We affirm so much of Garcia's judgment of conviction as reflects the jury verdict 1 2 3 Although the enhanced sentence provision of § 841(b)(1)(A) is triggered by trafficking in amounts of five kilograms or more of cocaine. We