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


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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

Your query death penalty capital punishment returned 759 results.

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

1000 OPINION/ORDER
STEWART 12713 I It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder.
986 OPINION/ORDER
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
946 OPINION/ORDER
Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in
889 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case. Riley pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and was tried by jury in Kent County Superior Court in December 1982. He was represented by appointed counsel. Riley placed a quart bottle of beer on the counter and announced that the store was being robbed. The prosecution intr oduced evidence that Riley's fingerprints were found on the bottle of beer that had been placed on the counter. Riley took the stand in his own defense and testified that he was in Philadelphia with his mother celebrating her birthday when the robbery occurred. Although Riley's mother was present in court at the beginning of the trial. No other alibi witnesses were presented. The penalty phase of the trial was held. After Riley was sentenced on the remaining counts for which he had been convicted. This claim is procedurally barred.
889 OPINION/ORDER
Mishann Chinn were found murdered in the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge in Prince George's County. Dustin John Higgs was subsequently convicted by a federal jury of three counts of first degree premeditated murder. All of which are punishable by life imprisonment or death. Higgs was also convicted of three counts of using a firearm
882 OPINION/ORDER
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.
877 OPINION/ORDER
We have considered each of Ferguson's contentions. We will affirm the district court's order. The court concluded
877 OPINION/ORDER
We have considered each of Ferguson's contentions. We will affirm the district court's order. The court concluded
875 OPINION/ORDER
2007 *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Was convicted in 1979 for the robbery and murder of Rosemary Cobbs. He was sentenced to death. Both the convictions and sentence were upheld by the courts of California. We consider whether Fields was denied a fair trial on account of juror bias. The effect is to deny habeas relief. I Fields was paroled from prison on September 13. Rosemary was naked on the bed and Fields was standing by the door. A 16 year old girl who was the former girlfriend of Fields's brother. That he was going to take her on a long trip
875 OPINION/ORDER
Security guard Richard Heflin was killed during an armed robbery of the Lindell Bank & Trust in St. Holder were charged and convicted in separate jury trials for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2. Allen was sentenced to life in prison on Count I and received a sentence of death on Count II. I. Background Holder was a regular customer of the Lindell Bank & Trust. Five hundred dollars was automatically deposited to his account each month from a legal settlement Holder obtained after losing the lower portion of one leg in a train accident. Allen and Holder were also seen together on several other occasions during the ten days leading up to the armed robbery. The night before the armed robbery two vans were stolen for use as the first two getaway vehicles after the robbery (Holder's mother's car was to be used as the third. The ballistics evidence showed that both rifles were discharged during the robbery and a total of sixteen shots were fired inside the bank. The remaining two could have come from either rifle. Was on fire and two park workers helped to extinguish the flames.
872 OPINION/ORDER
Was sentenced to death on the vote of a Delaware state jury in December 1982. It is not because there has been undue delay at any stage but because the case raises legitimate questions that go to the constitutionality of the original trial and sentencing. It was necessary to complete a series of proceedings in both state and federal court. Placed a bottle of beer on the counter and announced the store was being robbed. Who was then hopping up and down. As Riley and Baxter were proceeding to the door to leave. Williams were indicted on charges of felony murder. Baxter pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in exchange for his testimony against Riley. The murder and weapon charges against Williams were also dropped in exchange for his testimony against Riley. He was subsequently convicted of the robbery and conspiracy charges. Riley was represented at trial by appointed counsel. His pretrial motions for co counsel and funds for a private investigator were denied. The prosecutors in Riley's case were James Liguori and Mark McNulty.
870 97-1287 -- U.S. V. MCVEIGH -- 09/08/1998

McVeigh (
866 OPINION/ORDER
Getsy's petition was denied by the district court. The panel majority held that Getsy's death sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate to the life sentence that the separately tried instigator of the plot received for procuring the murder. Chuckie was on the love seat in the family room when.
863 01-6403 -- MOLLETT V. MULLIN -- 11/05/2003

Circuit Judge.

836 OPINION/ORDER
15) denying Brown the right to be present and to cross examine witnesses after this Court remanded the case for construction of the record. 2 1 The facts of this tragic case are straightforward and are taken from the testimony of the trial witnesses and from the last of Brown's three confessions. Which was recorded and presented to the jury by audiotape. Was a part time postmistress in the small town of Fleming. She was working in the Fleming Post Office on the morning of November 30. When she was stabbed to death. Was working in the Post Office with Gaglia between 8:00 a.m. and about 9:30 or 9:45 a.m. that day. As he was exiting the Post Office. Washington heard the man say his name was
831 OPINION/ORDER
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
826 OPINION/ORDER
Line 2 the reference to
822 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the District Court's orders as to all claims regarding the guilt phase of Marshall's trial. We will remand for further evidentiary development as to his claim that his attorney was ineffective in the penalty phase. Was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for having hired someone to murder his wife. Maria and her husband both were examined by a physician to qualify for an additional insurance policy. Marshall was hit on the head and Maria was fatally shot. We will reprise the facts at some length as they provide a necessary background for understanding much of our analysis. Marshall mentioned that he was seeking an out of town investigator to track missing casino winnings that he had given to his wife. Since Toms River was a small community where news traveled quickly. Marshall's only contact with McKinnon was through telephoning Cumber both at home and at the hardware store. McKinnon had a person whose name really was Jimmy Davis sign for the money each time. The numerous telephone conversations were.
817 OPINION/ORDER
On the grounds that notice was not provided to him a reasonable time before the trial as required by Title 18. Ferebe concedes that the district court's order denying his motion to strike the Death Notice is not a final judgment. Thus is susceptible to our review only if it is a collateral order. The government contends that the district court's order was not a collateral order. That if it was. The Death Notice was provided to Ferebe a reasonable time before trial. Because he was not prejudiced by any tardiness in the filing of the Notice. One involving application of that framework to the facts of the case are tightly. We conclude that the proper analysis that is to be applied in deciding challenges to the timeliness of a filing under the Death Notice statute. Is that of a pre trial inquiry into the objective reasonableness of that timing. FEREBE 3 district court orders denying motions to strike Death Notices are collateral orders susceptible to our review. We are unable conclusively to determine the merits of this case.
812 OPINION/ORDER
Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity.
812 OPINION/ORDER
Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity.
805 OPINION/ORDER
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
805 CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)

Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
805 OPINION/ORDER
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
805 CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)

Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
803 98-6196A -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999

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
803 98-6196 -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999

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
796 00-6024 -- NEILL V. GIBSON -- 12/07/2001

Circuit Judges.

789 OPINION/ORDER
Who were separately tried for unrelated double homicides and sentenced to death. The appeals were initially heard by two separate panels of this court during roughly the same period. Is a
789 OPINION/ORDER
Wilk asserts that the Death Notice was not provided to him
787 OPINION/ORDER
Tewksbury was working alone as the night clerk at the King Kwik convenience store at 9870 Pippin Road in Hamilton County. Monte was married and was the father of three children. Robert Shephard was driving northbound on Pippin Road. Monte was bleeding from his side. Went back to the telephone which was still off the hook. Monte was transported to a hospital.
787 OPINION/ORDER
The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and found Comer to have competently and voluntarily waived his habeas appeal right. We hold that Comer's sentence was invalid and hereby grant the writ of habeas corpus based on the violation of Comer's due process rights that occurred when he was sentenced to death while nearly naked. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Crime The facts of this case are deeply disturbing. It is unclear whether Pritchard died immediately from the The facts related to Comer's crime. Conviction are largely taken from the Supreme Court of Arizona's 1990 decision in this case. Remembering from their earlier encounter that Jones and Smith were in possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Jones managed to escape while Comer was fixing his truck. She was later picked up by a passing motorist and taken to the sheriff's home. SCHRIRO Charges Comer and Willis were charged in Maricopa County with the first degree murder and armed robbery of Pritchard and the armed robbery. Comer was charged with two counts of sexual abuse and three counts of sexual assault of Jones.
785 OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to review the District Court's order granting in part and denying in part Joseph Szuchon's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. We will grant Szuchon a certificate of appealability for his claims regarding the admission of certain psychiatric evidence in violation of Estelle v. We will affirm the District Court's denial of relief. A certificate of appealability will be denied on the remaining trial phase claims. That the Mills 2 claim is procedurally defaulted because Szuchon failed to exhaust his Mills claim in state court. State remedies are now foreclosed. Although we conclude that the Commonwealth may have waived this defense by failing to raise it in its answer to the habeas petition. We will address the question of whether the claim is procedurally defaulted. We conclude that the Mills claim is defaulted and barred from review on the merits given Szuchon's inability to show cause or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. One of which was that the state court improperly permitted the exclusion at voir dire of six prospective jurors who merely voiced opposition to the death penalty.
778 OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Amended Opinion. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is therefore DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. Facts1 Cal Brown is not a nice man. Schnell was able to call the front desk and summon the police. Brown was tried in Washington. Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency?
773 97-3229 -- U.S. V. CHANTHADARA -- 11/01/2000

Circuit Judge.

773 OPINION/ORDER
(4) that the district court erred in denying Jackson's motion for a mistrial based upon the alleged prosecutorial misconduct of calling a witness whose testimony was tainted and unreliable. JACKSON 3 court erred in allowing the jury to consider multiple intent factors when only one was necessary for imposition of the death penalty. (11) that the statutory aggravating circumstance found by the jury of
771 OPINION/ORDER
Lines 3 4 the citation is corrected to read
769 00-6090 -- BRYAN V. MULLIN -- 07/21/2003

INTRODUCTION

Robert Leroy Bryan was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first degree malice murder and sentenced to death. See Bryan v. (3) counsel was ineffective at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because counsel failed to present mental health evidence. (4) he was incompetent to stand trial. A panel of this court unanimously concluded that Bryan was not entitled to relief on his evidence sufficiency. Was almost entirely circumstantial. A potted plant was also found at Inabel's home. A pillowcase was duct taped over her head. There was a single set of vehicle tracks present at the scene. The tracks matched the tread pattern of the right rear tire on Bryan's rental car.

Authorities searched the property where Inabel's body was found because. Like that on the property where Inabel's body was discovered. Fibers lining the trunk were similar to those on Inabel's clothes and tape found on or near her body.

Police located additional evidence in Bryan's bedroom tying Bryan to the murder.

769 OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted of capital murder in the State of Virginia and sentenced to death. We find that Roach has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and that there is no basis for federal habeas corpus relief. Hughes
766 OPINION/ORDER
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.
764 SPIVEY V. HEAD (3/28/2000, NO. 98-8288)

Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under
764 SPIVEY V. HEAD (3/28/2000, NO. 98-8288)

Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under
764 UNITED STATES V. MCCULLAH

Defendant appellant John Javilo McCullah was convicted of drug conspiracy. A pickup truck containing nearly 100 kilograms of cocaine was stolen from the Arvizu organization by James Shiew. The truck was parked at the Hulbert. Was a friend of Ruth Ford. Ford were behind the theft. This plan was thwarted when Ms. This plan was abandoned when one of Mr. They were joined there by two other Mexican nationals. Several plans were devised to kill Mr. Was to kidnap and torture Mr. Was to go to Mr. Was to lure Mr. Rogers was
764 OPINION/ORDER
Spivey was tried and convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment for the former and twenty years for the latter. Because it was based in part on the use of evidence gathered in a psychiatric examination of Spivey that was conducted in violation of his constitutional rights. 2 1 parking lot. Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. He was never charged with any sexual offense. 3 2 appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the Spivey enumerated twenty four claims before the district court. In particular portions of medical records which were relied on by Spivey's psychiatric expert. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire.
764 OPINION/ORDER
Spivey was tried and convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment for the former and twenty years for the latter. Because it was based in part on the use of evidence gathered in a psychiatric examination of Spivey that was conducted in violation of his constitutional rights. 1 coming to investigate. Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. He was never charged with any sexual offense. 2 In November of 1983. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under Johnson v.
762 WATERS V. THOMAS

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/004082P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CEB62CA6D36B3EBF88256B5E005C1D46/$file/9999019.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Turner was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and robbery. The special circumstance of robbery murder was found to be true. He was sentenced to death on December 21. There is no question that Turner killed his victim he admitted as much or that the circumstances reveal the seamy underside of life and death in a central California farming community. There is a serious question as to whether Turner would be on death row today had his counsel. Who told the court he was unprepared to proceed with the penalty phase. This is a question we cannot answer on this undeveloped record. Thaddaeus Turner was imprisoned from June 1982 to September 1983 after pleading guilty to possession of stolen property. Because he did not have a car. Turner was already </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABB5449C604ABF178825729E007626A3/$file/9899003withgraphic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Note 3 (after the en banc court is chosen. The judges on the panel decide whether there will be oral argument). 3113 3114 COMER v. A three judge panel of our court remanded for the District Court to determine (1) whether Comer is competent to waive further proceedings and (2) whether he has chosen to do so voluntarily. The District Court found that Comer is competent and his decision to waive further proceedings voluntary. We review the District Court's finding that Comer is competent for clear error. That we review de novo the District Court's determination that Comer's decision to waive further proceedings is voluntary.1 Accordingly. 400 (1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3EAFBA3AC5722E98825703F0002ABCC/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown is substituted for her predecessor. We filed an opinion in this case holding that there is a reasonable probability that as a result of instructional error the jury did not consider constitutionally mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. Payton was a postAEDPA case and was decided under the highly deferential AEDPA standard. While the case before us is pre AEDPA and is determined by the application of the ordinary rules of constitutional interpretation. BROWN habeas corpus only if the state court was objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Such is not the case when AEDPA does not apply. If anything about AEDPA is clear. It is that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/039.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IV and announcing the judgment in part V: Petitioner appellant Jeffrey Clayton Kandies was sentenced to death after being found guilty by a North Carolina jury of the firstdegree rape and first degree murder of Natalie Lynn Osborne. We subsequently issued Kandies a certificate of appealability for his claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to investigate whether he was sexually abused as a child and (2) the North Carolina Supreme Court erred by concluding that the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike prospective African American jurors was not violative of the Supreme Court's holding in Batson v. Who is a Caucasian American. Who was his fiancee KANDIES v. Which is around the same time that Ms. Who noticed that Kandies's hand was beginning to swell. Suggested that Kandies have his hand examined by a medical technician that happened to be inside the store. Declined to have the medical technician examine his hand and immediately left the store. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6545D465E06283DB8825708200801E34/$file/0399007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Mitchell Carlton Sims was convicted of the first degree murder of John Harrigan. He was sentenced to death. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) does not apply to the merits of Sims's appeal because his federal petition was filed before AEDPA's effective date. Were violated by the admission of confessions obtained in a custodial setting after he invoked his rights to counsel and silence. (3) whether his right to an impartial jury was violated when a member of his jury met with a member of Padgett's jury and discussed writing a book about their experiences. (4) whether his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the prosecutor's closing argument in the penalty phase about factor (k). (6) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to object to comments that Sims argues violated Griffin v. (7) whether reversal is required on account of cumulative error. Sims was hired as a delivery driver by another Domino's. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB285D29949B859E88256F3300761991/$file/9999020.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. This version is identical to that one except for this paragraph. Terri was getting ready to go out to pick up some food at a local restaurant. She called the police to report that her car was missing around 10:00 that night. Reported that Terri was missing at 8:00 a.m. the next morning. Which were wet. Noted that the tires and undercarriage of his car were also wet. Terri was found naked except for a shirt and bra. Which were pulled up over her breasts. Jaw were fractured. Her face and body were severely bruised and much of the skin of her front side was torn up. Michael Morales was Ortega's cousin. Blood was found on the hammer. There was not enough to get a blood type. A wet towel smelling of ammonia was in a wastebasket. Morales was arrested and tried and convicted for rape and murder. So was Ortega. His separate case is not before us. Was also Terri Winchell's boyfriend. Though it was not entirely over when he became Terri Winchell's boyfriend. Rick told Christine that he was crying because he had written Randy Blythe a letter proposing a sexual relationship. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="745"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1845B4A48AADBA1D88256D63007AEC0D/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="745"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E67E664DE6DAEE5388256DE4000107D8/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2003 is hereby amended. Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/373C283753E753B188256AFD0017B922/$file/9799031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases are the predominant ones. He also asserts that (4) the 1978 California death penalty statute under which he was convicted and sentenced is unconstitutional. We agree with the courts that have already reviewed this case that. Regardless of whether the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the guilt phase was deficient. We hold that the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the penalty phase was deficient and that Mayfield suffered prejudice as a result. The state court shall conduct a new sentencing proceeding to determine whether Mayfield is to be sentenced to death or to life without parole. The car was repossessed because of delinquent payments. Byron was in possession of the car for only three days before it disappeared from the Popes' driveway. Mayfield and two of his friends were arrested in the car a day later. Mayfield pled guilty to one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle and was released pending a sentencing hearing. He was told that he would be sentenced to one year in jail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/918FF925C122923988256E5A00707D3E/$file/9799031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases are the predominant ones. He also asserts that (4) the 1978 California death penalty statute under which he was convicted and sentenced is unconstitutional. We agree with the courts that have already reviewed this case that. Regardless of whether the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the guilt phase was deficient. We hold that the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the penalty phase was deficient and that Mayfield suffered prejudice as a result. The state court shall conduct a new sentencing proceeding to determine whether Mayfield is to be sentenced to death or to life without parole. The car was repossessed because of delinquent payments. Byron was in possession of the car for only three days before it disappeared from the Popes' driveway. Mayfield and two of his friends were arrested in the car a day later. Mayfield pled guilty to one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle and was released pending a sentencing hearing. He was told that he would be sentenced to one year in jail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-7005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Kenneth Barrett was convicted of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to several drug trafficking crimes. Barrett was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release for the first two convictions. State law enforcement officials were aware of his presence and continued to investigate his activities. Received information from a confidential informant (CI) that Barrett was manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine at his residence. Johnson was aware that Barrett routinely carried firearms and had threatened to kill law enforcement officers if they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214941.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5DC075690643E627882570F80008C7F7/$file/0699001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that it is not a second or successive petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 or. Because we conclude that Allen's Lackey claim is a second or successive application which could </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/opndir/01/09/002777P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner was convicted by a jury for murder and sentenced to death by the state court judge after the jury failed to reach a decision on punishment. To apply correctly Missouri's statutory scheme for imposing the death penalty was plain error and deprived petitioner of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. Petitioner cross appeals from the District Court's rejection of his claim that his Fourteenth Amendment right to a unanimous verdict was violated by the trial judge's refusal to re poll the jury after a juror changed his mind as to guilt during the penalty phase of the trial. I. Petitioner was charged with two counts of first degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action for the April 17. Petitioner shot one victim while the victim was on his knees. Petitioner presented several witnesses who testified that he was a peaceful. Denying that he shot the victims and claiming that his statement to the police was induced by promises and threats. The jury was dismissed for the day at 4:55 p.m. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D38C1EE1C92A9DF88256B57007FDF49/$file/9799017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pizzuto was sentenced to death. Because Pizzuto filed his habeas petition before the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was enacted. Regardless of when the petition was filed. Pizzuto needs a certificate of appealability (COA) rather than a certificate of probable cause (CPC) for this court to have jurisdiction. As Pizzuto could not have known that a COA rather than a CPC was required. Berta Herndon and her adult nephew Delbert Herndon were robbed and murdered and their property was stolen while they were camping in the Ruby Meadows area. The victims' hands were bound behind their backs with shoelaces and heavy wire. Berta's and Delbert's jeans were pulled below their knees. Were camping together that day in a cabin in the Ruby Meadows area. While they were at the pond. He picked up a .22 caliber rifle and said he was going </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6065.htm">97-6065 -- MOORE V. REYNOLDS -- 07/13/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Moore was convicted of robbery in 1978 and served three and a half years in state confinement. Where Alex Fernandez was working the night shift. He was unsuccessful. Moore called Fernandez to ask if there were any rooms available. Moore told Caster she was to open the cash register while he tied and gagged Fernandez. <p> Moore and Caster drove to the Airline Motel and parked behind the motel. As Caster was attempting to wipe away her fingerprints. There was no answer and they drove to a cafe. Moore said </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/009005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/061001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A motion for a new trial ­ all of which were denied by the district court1 in a comprehensive memorandum opinion. Was the central witness in a drug case against Honken. Who were both drug dealers in Mason City. Who was his girlfriend at the time. Johnson told Honken that because DeGeus was using too much of the methamphetamine for his own The Honorable Mark W. We will not revisit the issue here. 22 1 personal use. Which was monitored by police. A receipt for the purchase of chemicals was found in Cutkomp's pocket. After Honken was arrested. Honken was released on bond. A plea hearing was scheduled for July 30. Johnson purchased a semi automatic 9 mm assault pistol at a pawn shop about 3 an hour's drive from her home.3 The last time Johnson asked Gaubatz to babysit so that she and Honken could look for Nicholson was July 24. Were murdered. The following recitation is drawn from these accounts. Johnson was carrying a cosmetics demonstration bag and claimed that she had an appointment to give a demonstration. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-7096.htm">99-7096 -- BATTENFIELD V. GIBSON -- 01/03/2001<BR></A><BR> They declined because it was cold. There is also evidence that at this approximate time. Stopping once on the way for another ten to fifteen minutes. <p> There is conflicting evidence concerning what transpired when the occupants of the car returned. None of the men were in sight when they first returned to the truck. Cantrell was not in sight. <p> On the way back to Muskogee. The car broke down on the way back to Muskogee and a highway patrol officer helped Battenfield jump start the car. <p> Cantrell's body was found the next day at Wahoo Bay. The injury would likely have rendered Cantrell unconscious. The autopsy results also indicated Cantrell suffered various post mortem abrasions (perhaps from being dragged along the ground from one area to another). <p> The highway patrol officer who helped Battenfield jump start the car testified that Battenfield was wearing Cantrell's coat. Battenfield was again observed wearing Cantrell's coat. Battenfield was arrested for the murder of Cantrell on April 24. Hairs from Cantrell's head were found on Battenfield's jeans and stocking cap (both of which Battenfield was wearing on the night of the murder). <p> Battenfield's jury trial began on February 25. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/958B0BDE14EF6F2988256C36008195E2/$file/9899033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury was instructed to determine whether the murder with which Valerio was charged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994737A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the last slash in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/954017.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 9 the reference to § 106 is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-15721.man.html">GRAYSON V. THOMPSON (7/16/2001, NO. 00-15721)<BR></A><BR> Darrell Grayson was convicted of the capital murder of an elderly widow and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Annie Laura Orr was an eighty six (86) year old widow who lived alone in her house in Montevallo. They were armed with a .38 Caliber handgun. Orr was elderly. Orr's bedroom where she was apparently sleeping. Darrell Grayson then placed a pillowcase over her head and wrapped two relatively long lengths of masking tape very tightly around her head so that when they were finished he[r] head then appeared to be that of a mummy. Orr's murder and was familiar generally with the Grayson family. Officers knew that Kennedy and Grayson were friends and had been seen together the previous night. Officers were aware that Grayson had worked for Mrs. Orr previously and that he was familiar with her residence. Grayson's Confessions</EM></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-15721.man.html">GRAYSON V. THOMPSON (7/16/2001, NO. 00-15721)<BR></A><BR> Darrell Grayson was convicted of the capital murder of an elderly widow and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Annie Laura Orr was an eighty six (86) year old widow who lived alone in her house in Montevallo. They were armed with a .38 Caliber handgun. Orr was elderly. Orr's bedroom where she was apparently sleeping. Darrell Grayson then placed a pillowcase over her head and wrapped two relatively long lengths of masking tape very tightly around her head so that when they were finished he[r] head then appeared to be that of a mummy. Orr's murder and was familiar generally with the Grayson family. Officers knew that Kennedy and Grayson were friends and had been seen together the previous night. Officers were aware that Grayson had worked for Mrs. Orr previously and that he was familiar with her residence. Grayson's Confessions</EM></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-6024.htm">00-6024 -- NEILL V. GIBSON -- 08/27/2001<BR></A><BR> Were roommates involved in a homosexual relationship. They were having serious financial difficulties. One woman was seven months pregnant. Was out of ammunition. <p> Neill and Johnson then flew to San Francisco. The murders were especially heinous. Will not be entitled to habeas relief unless he can establish that the state court resolved his claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-1285.wpd.html">DAVIS V. EXECUTIVE DIR. OF DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS<BR></A><BR> Davis was not abandoned by his attorney in the closing argument of the penalty phase of his trial. (3) the statutory aggravators presented to the jury were either valid or. Were harmless. The tragic facts concerning this crime have been fully set out in the state court opinions affirming Mr. Fincham were tried separately. Craig Truman was appointed Mr. (1) While this appeal was pending. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the conspiracy and second degree kidnaping convictions.(2) The penalty phase for the murder convictions began the day after the guilt/innocence phase concluded. The jury was presented with six aggravating factors and eight mitigating factors. The jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that death was the proper punishment. Davis was also charged with being an habitual offender. (2) the jury was permitted to consider unconstitutional statutory aggravators. State court factual findings are presumptively correct and are therefore entitled to deference. When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney's performance was inadequate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/049007p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Marshall ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="706"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> File Name: 00a0138p.06 Because we conclude that there was no manifest miscarriage of justice in Scott's trial or sentencing that would authorize us to issue a federal writ of habeas corpus countermanding the judgment of the Ohio courts. We are convinced that the district court erred in holding that the ground on which it granted the writ was not procedurally barred. Because we conclude that the district court correctly held that the other grounds raised by Scott's petition were either defaulted or without merit. We will reverse the issuance of the writ. Factual History The facts of the underlying crime are not in significant dispute. The following summary is largely taken from the district court's Order. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim is not procedurally defaulted. Scott argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove that he committed or attempted to commit aggravated robbery. As the only specification that made him deatheligible was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0112A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 7 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0314.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This omission by Humphries' counsel was. Humphries was successfully prosecuted in South Carolina state court. Humphries was sentenced to death for murder. Humphries' application for postconviction relief in South Carolina state court was dismissed by the Common Pleas Court on December 21. His appeal was rejected by the South Carolina Supreme Court on August 26. A federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless the state court's holding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-5014.htm">01-5014 -- HAIN V. GIBSON -- 02/20/2002<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The following is a summary of the facts as set forth by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) in disposing of Hain's initial direct appeal: <p> During the early morning hours of October 6. Laura Lee Sanders and Michael Houghton were seated in Sanders' car outside a Tulsa bar when they were approached by two men. Hain and Lambert were in the parking lot. Houghton and Sanders were banging on the trunk and yelling. Returned a short time later to see if the fire was burning well. <p> The two men stopped at a friend's house in Jennings and left a bag of things belonging to the victims in the garage. Where they were apprehended on the evening of October 9. Hain was charged by complaint and information in the District Court of Creek County. (2) that the murders were especially heinous. That the murders were especially heinous. All of whom opined that Hain was not prone to violence. (4) the fact that he was dominated by Lambert. The existence of all three aggravating factors alleged by the prosecution and Hain was sentenced to death on both counts. <p> Following his resentencing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/013542P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether a state has adopted a postconviction appointment of counsel mechanism satisfying AEDPA's opt in requirements is a question of law. Subsection (b) and subsection (c) of section 2261 establish the requirements a state must meet to opt in for expedited habeas review.3 Subsection (b) establishes 3 Section 2261 (b) and (c) provide (b) This chapter is applicable if a State establishes by statute. Payment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent counsel in State post conviction proceedings brought by indigent prisoners whose capital convictions and sentences have been upheld on direct appeal to the court of last resort in the State or have otherwise become final for State law purposes. Rule 29.16 provides (1) appointing one or more counsels to represent the prisoner upon a finding that the prisoner is indigent and accepted the offer or is unable competently to decide whether to accept or reject the offer. Or (3) denying the appointment of counsel upon a finding that the prisoner is not indigent. 28 U.S.C. § 2261 (b) (c) (emphasis added). 5 When a motion is filed as provided in Rule 29.15 to set aside a sentence of death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0315p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hicks was convicted after a trial by jury of two counts of aggravated murder. He was sentenced to death. Who was Ghitana's mother and his mother in law. He knew that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0193p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sowell's counsel was confident that one of the three judges on the panel would refuse to recommend death. Sowell's direct and collateral appeals through the Ohio courts were unsuccessful. Finding that Sowell's jury waiver was not knowing and intelligent. That his counsel was ineffective. We reverse the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus to Sowell because he has not demonstrated that his jury waiver was not knowing and intelligent or that his counsel was ineffective. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY As the facts that underlie Sowell's death penalty are not in controversy. [Sowell] was the resident manager of the building and became acquainted with Graham. [Sowell] was a guest in Graham's apartment. Also present were Donna Edwards (Edwards). There was conflicting testimony concerning the events that transpired thereafter. It is not disputed that [Sowell] eventually lost consciousness. Billups was in the company of Edwards and the trio passed in the doorway of a store but did not acknowledge one another. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-6329.htm">96-6329 -- DUVALL V. REYNOLDS -- 12/10/1997<BR></A><BR> Duvall was in trouble. He stated that she was angry with him because he arranged for her drug prescription to be canceled. He replied that their son was at his grandmother's home. Duvall was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person and (2) that the murder was especially heinous. Duvall was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims and dismissed his petition. Or cruel </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B2E526E11618CBA88257210007B1F4A/$file/0435253.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case presents the question whether a state prisoner who contends that he is actually innocent. Whose principal witness is coerced by the state into not testifying on his behalf. Roger Smith is currently serving a life sentence with a 30 year minimum term. The claims were procedurally defaulted. All we decide is that. Both the facts and the law are complex. The exception on which he relies is known as the Schlup </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-6329a.htm">96-6329A -- DUVALL V. REYNOLDS -- 12/10/1997<BR></A><BR> 1997 <p> Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision: <p> Case number 97 6299 was inadvertently omitted from the caption of the opinion disposing of this appeal. Duvall was in trouble. He stated that she was angry with him because he arranged for her drug prescription to be canceled. He replied that their son was at his grandmother's home. Duvall was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person and (2) that the murder was especially heinous. Duvall was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims and dismissed his petition. Or cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0330p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bowling was convicted in state court of murdering Tina and Eddie Earley and sentenced to death. His conviction and death sentence were affirmed by Kentucky courts on direct appeal and in post conviction proceedings. He contends that he was denied proper jury instructions. Given a sentence that was constitutionally disproportionate. Eddie and Tina Earley were shot to death in their automobile in a parking lot outside a Lexington dry cleaning establishment. Parker No. 01 5832 year old son Christopher was also shot. The police determined that the Earleys' car must have been hit by a 1981 light blue Chevrolet Malibu. They also determined that a 1981 Malibu was registered in the county to Bowling. They pursued several theories of who could have murdered the Earleys. Were worried because they had not seen Bowling. Who was affectionately known as T.C. Was not there. Bowling was represented at trial by three attorneys: Baldani. The court's stated goal in voir dire was to qualify forty four of the ninety nine pooled jurors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/983497P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Paul was convicted of aiding and abetting the murder of Sherman Williams on federal land. Williams' body was found on June 26. A piece of duct tape around Williams' neck was presumed to have once been around Williams' mouth. The Deputy Coroner testified that Williams' head was nearly detached from his spine and there was a large open wound at the right temple above the jaw. FBI agents testified that Williams' wallet was later found in the park near his body. Williams' vehicle was found 150 feet down in a pit in a remote area of the park. Trinity Ingle's latent fingerprint was recovered from inside of the vehicle. Paul also told Rogers that because Williams was not yet dead following the beating. Rogers testimony was corroborated by several other witnesses. He was arrested in August 1996. Paul's statement to La Voie was consistent with the accounts given by Paul's acquaintances. The jury unanimously found that Paul was eighteen years or older at the time he committed the offense and that he intentionally aided and abetted in the killing. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510904.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Marquard argues primarily that his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways during the penalty phase of his trial. Murder of Stacey Willets Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of his girlfriend. After Willets's remains were discovered by hunters in the woods. Marquard and codefendant Michael Abshire were arrested. Are as follows: John Marquard. During a stop in South Carolina Marquard told Abshire that he was going to kill her because he was tired of arguing with her. She was still breathing. Marquard was arrested and confessed. Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. Marquard contended that he was present for the murder of Stacey Willets. Testified that it was Marquard who planned to kill and ultimately did kill Willets. As follows: [STATE ATTORNEY]: Where is the first place that you stopped? [ABSHIRE]: We stopped at a . . . like a convenience store/gas station in South Carolina when the sea bags that were on the trunk fell off. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015858.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was constitutionally firm. I. The facts surrounding the death of Lathen Aaron Dodd are undisputed. Any patrons who were not already lying down were forced to the ground. The perpetrators continued to abuse them physically patrons were 2 hit on the head. Once all of the customers were secured on the ground. As the patrons were being robbed of their possessions. Demanded to know who the owner of the bar was. This robber demanded to know where the rest of the money was. When he was told that there was no more money. The patrons were forced to crawl to the restroom at the back of the bar. While they were on the way to the bathroom. More shots were fired. Dodd was then taken to the hospital. The cause of death was bleeding that resulted from a gunshot wound to the chest and abdomen. 3 A. Attorney Herbert Massie was appointed to represent Brownlee. His representation ended when Massie was suspended from the practice of law for failing to comply with his continuing legal education requirements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0064p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gary Bradford Cone was sentenced to death in a Tennessee state court for a double murder of an elderly couple and his conviction and death sentence were affirmed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. We are asked to decide · Whether Cone was sentenced to death in violation of the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Is whether. Even in cases in which the issue is not raised explicitly. · The second. Is whether the petitioner procedurally defaulted. Bell No. 99 5279 Our answer to the first state law question is yes. It is no. We are authorized to reach the Eighth Amendment issue. We hold that petitioner Cone's death sentence must be vacated because one of the statutory aggravating circumstances the jury relied upon in imposing the death sentence that the murders were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0112.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion filed 1/7/03 is vacated. Challenging the determination that his petition was not timely filed and the refusal of equitable tolling. The record presented to the district court was sparse indeed. By a man who was later executed for her murder.1 When all prospective jurors were asked for such information at voir dire. 88 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1956) (en banc). 2 Although the date of the published opinion is February 4. The record reflects and the State concedes that the order was actually entered on February 5. February 8 was late but only one day late. That jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/66F32EE4F51E77F988256F150075272B/$file/0199014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. The mandate shall not issue until it is determined whether. Circuit Judge: Larry David Davis was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. As they were driving. She first tried to end his advances by telling him she was a lesbian. She was finally able to persuade him to stop by telling him that she would have sex with him in a motel in town. While Davis was pumping gas. Saying that she was returning to New York within days. When asked what he was doing. It was there that he met Dawn Holman. He was standing on the sidewalk in front of the store smoking marijuana when a man. That woman was Dawn Holman. Holman's body was found around 5 a.m. by a greenskeeper at a nearby golf course. Her car was partially in a ditch about 265 feet from her body. The front passenger door was heavily damaged. Appeared to have hit a nearby telephone pole. The medical examiner testified that Holman's body showed evidence of sexual assault: her body was found with her bra pulled down below her chest. </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/2002/03/00-6244.htm">00-6244 -- REVILLA V. GIBSON -- 03/13/2002<BR></A><BR> We conclude Revilla is not entitled to habeas relief. This appeal is dismissed pursuant to 28 . As follows: <p> Appellant was convicted of the child abuse murder of thirteen (13) month old Mark Gomez. Was left alone at the house shared by Appellant and McElmurry. Yelling that he had swallowed his tongue and was not breathing. Subsequent attempts by hospital medical personnel were unsuccessful in reviving the unconscious infant. The decedent was pale and appeared not to be breathing. The OCCA specifically held the evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0722p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by Stanton T. Story contends that we must excuse the exhaustion requirement because the nine year delay in his post conviction collateral proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County was inordinate. In doing so we note that it seems likely that Story would not have suffered this delay had the Court of Common Pleas maintained a central docket sheet for each criminal case rather than a system which merely lists entries in the order of their filing. This method makes it difficult to determine whether or when a particular order was filed. Story was convicted for the first degree murder of Police Officer Patrick Wallace and sentenced to death. The pro se petition was denied without a hearing. Because the claims were without merit. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who. The state process was ineffective to protect his rights. 1993.[fn7] Since this is an appeal from a final order dismissing Story's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/985.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 11 a section mark is inserted before each section number of the U.S. Line 9 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/031207P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were indicted and tried for the federal crimes of murder of a federal witness (first degree murder) and conspiracy to rob a credit union. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a). Lightfoot's appeal was later dismissed pursuant to his motion following the Supreme Court's decision in Sattazahn. The defendant by statute receives </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9F548C4220E69988256E8C005AC501/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence of Allen's guilt for the crimes of conviction is overwhelming. Is that Allen's representation at the penalty phase of his trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Trial counsel admits he did nothing to prepare for the penalty phase until after the guilty verdicts were rendered. In what little time was available. There is a reasonable probability that the result of Allen's penalty phase would have been a sentence other than death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5A1535FB482F685E88256F930058B6D7/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 5831 insert the following language at the end of the first paragraph: We do not hold that humanizing. WOODFORD The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. The evidence of Allen's guilt for the crimes of conviction is overwhelming. Is that Allen's representation at the penalty phase of his trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Trial counsel admits he did nothing to prepare for the penalty phase until after the guilty verdicts were rendered. In what little time was available. There is a reasonable probability that the result of Allen's penalty phase would have been a sentence other than death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-6004.htm">98-6004 -- MOORE V. GIBSON -- 09/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and kidnaping for the abduction and murder of twelve year old Jenipher Gilbert. He is entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing on his allegations that police planted evidence against him. Atrocious or cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30FAC91B2BC338AC882569FA00606EF7/$file/9999010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The Brief of Amici Curiae is ordered filed. Is amended as follows: At 231 F.3d 1140. Add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph under that same heading: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0043p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death by a three judge panel in Ohio state court. That his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution had been violated when he was denied the 1 VON CLARK DAVIS. Because the decisions in the Ohio courts rejecting this contention and upholding the sentencing order were both contrary to and unreasonable applications of the rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Skipper v. Lying on the pavement approximately six feet outside the front door of the Legion was the deceased victim. One of the entrance wounds suggested that the muzzle of the murder weapon was within four to twenty inches of the victim's head at the time the weapon was fired. The shooting was witnessed by Reginald Denmark and Cozette Massey. As they were walking. Another shot was fired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5010D314FAF39DF788256E5A00707A62/$file/9999010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The Brief of Amici Curiae is ordered filed. Is amended as follows: At 231 F.3d 1140. Add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph under that same heading: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0319p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The strongest is his claim that the trial court's 1 DANIEL WILSON. That any error in this regard was harmless. We further conclude that Wilson's remaining claims are without merit. Wilson was drinking at the Empire Tavern. He was driving a black Oldsmobile Cutlass and appeared to be alone. That the car was his. Wilson tried to get DeBolt to go out with him and was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515110.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While Reed was making dinner. While they were talking. Henyard told her he was going to a night club in Orlando and to see his father in South Florida. The Lewis girls were crying and upset. This is Satan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/943902P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. *Circuit Judges Bright and Henley are Circuit Judges on senior status. I. Background In 1983 a jury convicted Bannister of the capital murder of Darrell Reustman and he was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were His motions for state postaffirmed on direct appeal. 471 U.S. 1009 (1985). conviction relief were denied. As was a section 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Holding that the claims in it were either demonstrated prejudice under Wainwright v. Because we hold that Bannister is not entitled to relief under the prior more lenient habeas law. We do not address the state's contention that the Act is applicable to this appeal and precludes relief. 22 1 as to permit habeas review.3 Mo. While Bannister's appeal was pending. As the District Court determines is necessary and proper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-6027.htm">01-6027 -- CARGLE V. MULLIN -- 03/11/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/041337P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He then told the officers that he was going to plead guilty in the Kansas case and was therefore willing to confess to the kidnapping. Murder of the victim (who was later identified as Ms. Although he was skeptical of Mr. Tarpley and Howard to the crime scene and to the place where he claimed to have discarded the victim's undergarments and jaw bone. The victim's remains were not recoverable. Who he said he thought was a prostitute. (3) that the victim was particularly vulnerable due to her youthful age of sixteen years. Purkey had previously been convicted of an offense resulting in the death of a person for which a sentence of life imprisonment was authorized by statute. Purkey's primary argument on appeal is that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his multiple confessions to the kidnapping. He argues that the district court should have suppressed his statements to Messrs. Tarpley and Howard because the statements were involuntary and therefore obtained in violation of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-6027.htm">01-6027 -- CARGLE V. MULLIN -- 01/27/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BC642D9E0A161EC882572D8004C49BE/$file/0499010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We confront once again the question whether defense counsel's performance during the sentencing phase of a capital trial was so deficient as to violate the defendant's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Appellant Joe Leonard Lambright and his co defendant Robert Smith were convicted of first degree murder. Lambright was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Arizona courts on direct appeal and in state post conviction proceedings. After the case was returned to the panel for resolution of Lambright's remaining claims. Further ruled that even if the performance was deficient. Lambright was not prejudiced thereby. Because we conclude that trial counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial. Lambright and Smith were traveling across the country with Lambright's girlfriend. Smith complained to Lambright about the fact that he did not have a traveling companion with whom he could engage in sexual relations. Owen died as a result of her injuries.1 After the trio was arrested. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0DC97BD5111E33578825730C004BD410/$file/0499010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0403p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Young was transferred from a jail in Oklahoma City. Was killed in Oklahoma City on August 2. Capital murder charges were added against Young in a Fourth Superceding Indictment filed in September 1999. Jamal Shakir was charged with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. Who is from Los Angeles. Claims not to have set foot in Tennessee before being taken into federal custody. Severance was granted such that Young. Because Payne was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110215.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> KAHN CLERK Petitioner Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Leslie English by the Georgia state courts in 1987. We conclude that Crawford is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence. Facts Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted for the murder of his 29 month old niece. The defendant was married to. The defendant was intoxicated and. During this time the victim was in the care of Mrs. He stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0124p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a state prisoner incarcerated on Ohio's death row. With the capital specification that the murder was committed to escape detection. Stumpf alleges (1) that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. (2) that his due process rights were violated by the state's use of inconsistent theories to secure convictions against both Stumpf and his accomplice. (3) that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. (4) that the Ohio death penalty statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. Stumpf had waived his right to a trial by jury and elected to have his case heard by a threejudge panel. The threejudge panel held such a hearing in this case and found that there was a factual basis for Stumpf's plea. That he was guilty of aggravated murder with the capital specification and. That there was insufficient mitigating evidence to spare Stumpf from imposition of the death penalty. That he was not present when the victim was shot. The state argued in response that Stumpf was the shooter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0091p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner was convicted in Ohio state court of five counts of aggravated murder with two death penalty specifications and five counts of kidnapping. Facts as Recited by the Ohio Supreme Court Lundgren's Background Lundgren was born in Missouri and raised in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Kentucky resident who was stabbed to death at the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/019008p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Richard Hackett was convicted by a Pennsylvania jury of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. His direct appeals and post conviction claims in state court were unsuccessful. Which the District Court granted after determining there is a reasonable likelihood the jury interpreted the trial court's instructions and verdict form to preclude it from considering 2 mitigating evidence in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Spence and Ogrod were partners in the sale of illegal drugs. Were sleeping. Was killed. Hackett was charged with murder in the first degree. In 1988 he was tried jointly with Spence. All four defendants were convicted of first degree murder. Spence also was sentenced to death. The jury in his case finding aggravating circumstances that outweighed any mitigating circumstance.2 Gray and Barrett were sentenced to life imprisonment. 3 On direct appeal. This is not correct. That they were sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder means the jury either found no aggravating circumstance or found one or more aggravating circumstances that were outweighed by one or more mitigating circumstances. 5 3 2 Hackett. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/049011np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment of the District Court in all respects. I. Stevens was convicted at a 1993 bench trial on two counts of first degree murder.1 At trial. A jury was empaneled for the capital sentencing phase. Stevens was sentenced to death. The interested reader is referred to the District Court's thorough opinion. The court rejected Stevens's argument that counsel ineffectively failed to argue that a potential juror was improperly excluded under Witherspoon v. Which was Stevens's only guilt phase claim. Both Stevens and the Commonwealth timely appealed.2 The Commonwealth's appeal of the grant of habeas relief on the Witherspoon issue was docketed at C.A. Stevens's appeal was docketed at C.A. Stevens was required to show both that (a) the attorney performed unreasonably under prevailing professional norms and (b) there exists a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-6236.htm">98-6236 -- PAXTON V. WARD -- 12/29/1999<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p> Petitioner Kenneth Wayne Paxton was convicted of first degree murder by a jury in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. Determined that the sentencing proceeding was constitutionally flawed by the exclusion of mitigating evidence. Paxton argues that he was improperly denied an instruction on a lesser included offense. That evidence of an invalid prior conviction was improperly admitted during the sentencing phase of his trial to support two of the three aggravating circumstances found by the jury.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0418p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was upheld on direct and state post conviction review. Cara testified that [Joseph] was jealous of Ryan's relationship with her. This was evidenced by several letters [Joseph] wrote to Cara indicating his jealousy and desire to continue dating Cara. Was outside walking her dog at about 11:15 p.m. that night. There were two occupants in the car. The next morning she noticed there were tire tracks in the driveway. Were at the same time watching the movie at Cara's house. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1014.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Turnbill</SPAN> were on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Edward Washington are parties to this proceeding. We focus exclusively on them.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/032880P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> William Weaver and Daryl Shurn were convicted of the execution style shooting death of Charles Taylor. Taylor was an acquaintance of Shurn who was going to testify against Shurn in a drug case. Weaver was convicted of doing so. Is there a possibility he's innocent? We wouldn't have a death penalty. George Patton was talking to his troops because the next day they were going to go out in battle and they were scared as young soldiers. He's explaining to them that I know that some of you are going to get killed and some of you are going to do some killing tomorrow morning. He was going to try to encourage them that sometimes you've got to kill and sometimes you've got to risk death because it's right. He said: But tomorrow when you reach over and put your hand in the pile of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face. Defense counsel objected to the statements as improper on the grounds that they were intended to inflame and prejudice the jury. This is business. You have to give a message here. You have to tell the Williams Weavers and the Daryl Shurns of the world. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/79F6578CFCA7F8CE88256ECB0001E661/$file/0199017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the district court correctly rejected Sanders' claim that the jury that convicted him was drawn from a jury venire that unconstitutionally failed to reflect the number of Hispanics in Kern County. Where he was tried. We also conclude that this error was not harmless. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Sanders was found guilty of murdering of Janice Allen. Who was a drug dealer. Maxwell was one of his customers. As was Thompson. The plan was to lure Boender to Maxwell's home. Have Sanders whom Boender did not know attack and rob Boender. Then have Sanders bind and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-6448.htm">01-6448 -- WORKMAN V. MULLIN -- 08/26/2003<BR></A><BR> Was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury in Oklahoma state court for felony first degree child abuse murder. As was the case here. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/029005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the order of the District Court denying the petition of John Martini. Martini was convicted of first degree murder and related offenses in connection with the disappearance and death of Irving Flax. Flax was forcibly taken from his home by Martini and his thengirlfriend. It was not disputed that Martini committed the crime. Adducing evidence that Martini's capacity was diminished by serious and long standing addiction to cocaine. Martini was sentenced to death. That a potential juror was improperly dismissed for cause in violation of Witherspoon v. We have no difficulty with the latter point. The former issue is. Close and difficult with respect to juror Ronald Vladyka (though not with respect to two other jurors with respect to whom a COA was not issued). Martini presents a forceful argument that the ability of juror Ronald Vladyka to follow the trial Court's instructions as to the penalty phase was not substantially impaired. That he should have been seated on the jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/029005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the order of the District Court denying the petition of John Martini. Martini was convicted of first degree murder and related offenses in connection with the disappearance and death of Irving Flax. Flax was forcibly taken from his home by Martini and his thengirlfriend. It was not disputed that Martini committed the crime. Adducing evidence that Martini's capacity was diminished by serious and long standing addiction to cocaine. Martini was sentenced to death. That a potential juror was improperly dismissed for cause in violation of Witherspoon v. We have no difficulty with the latter point. The former issue is. Close and difficult with respect to juror Ronald Vladyka (though not with respect to two other jurors with respect to whom a COA was not issued). Martini presents a forceful argument that the ability of juror Ronald Vladyka to follow the trial Court's instructions as to the penalty phase was not substantially impaired. That he should have been seated on the jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0310.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 17 the date </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/982549P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2. Allen and Holder were convicted on both counts. Was constitutional error in light of Apprendi v. Our review of Supreme Court precedent and the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA) persuaded us that the mental culpability and aggravating factors were sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense. This decision was premised on Walton v. We explained that Apprendi was not implicated. Was the indictment in this case sufficient to charge a capital offense. Must Allen's death sentence be 3 vacated because no aggravating factors were charged in the indictment?2 II. On The parties briefed two other post Ring issues as well: (1) whether the mens rea element required under 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2) is essential to. (2) whether the Federal Death Penalty Act is unconstitutional because it does not require participation of the grand jury in the charging of aggravating circumstances in a capital case. Because our conclusion with regard to the statutory aggravator issue is dispositive of Allen's appeal. </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/86683EF058F53A06882571FB0055198B/$file/0399006.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The factual history of this case was detailed in our earlier opinion. Correll was convicted by an Arizona jury in 1984 of first degree murder. He was sentenced to 17132 CORRELL v. His conviction was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court. The district court determined that twenty six of Correll's claims were procedurally barred. We affirmed all of the district court's order except as to Correll's contention that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. RYAN 17133 sentencing was deficient. Because Correll's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. That </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/oct2001/00-13347.OP2.html">UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)<BR></A><BR> 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-6.gif" ALT="639"></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)<BR></A><BR> 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-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0257p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although we disagree with the district court's conclusion that Poindexter was deprived of his right to counsel during the guilt phase. I. Background The facts of this case are excerpted from State v. Was serving a sentence in the workhouse (Community Correctional Institution) for felonious assault on his former girlfriend and the mother of his two children. Appellant confided in a fellow inmate that Abernathy was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9927.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the state trial court's voir dire questions were constitutionally inadequate under Morgan v. That he surrendered his right to testify at the criminal responsibility phase of his trial in reliance on advice from the trial court that was erroneous under Simmons v. I. Oken was sentenced to death in 1991 by a Baltimore County jury for the murder of Dawn Garvin.1 Four years earlier. A .25 caliber handgun seized from Oken's bedroom was later determined to be the murder weapon. A piece of rubber recovered from the crime scene was traced to Oken's tennis shoes. Several of Garvin's neighbors identified Oken as the person who had attempted to gain entry to their residences under various 1 Oken was separately convicted of murdering his sister in law. To determine whether the Maryland Court of Appeals' rejection of Oken's claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-12449.man.html">ROMINE V. HEAD (6/15/2001, NO. 99-12449)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </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/june2000/98-3693.man.html">MEEKS V. MOORE (6/27/2000, NO. 98-3693)<BR></A><BR> They noticed that Thompson was lying behind the sales counter and that she was apparently injured. The boys saw that blood was flowing out of a knife wound in her neck. Thompson was gasping for air and waiving her hand wildly. There was also blood on the counter and on the sides of the cash register.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </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//june2001/99-12449.man.html">ROMINE V. HEAD (6/15/2001, NO. 99-12449)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </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//june2000/98-3693.man.html">MEEKS V. MOORE (6/27/2000, NO. 98-3693)<BR></A><BR> They noticed that Thompson was lying behind the sales counter and that she was apparently injured. The boys saw that blood was flowing out of a knife wound in her neck. Thompson was gasping for air and waiving her hand wildly. There was also blood on the counter and on the sides of the cash register.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </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/9727.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Chandler was tried before a jury in Virginia state court and convicted of capital murder and related offenses. When that relief was denied. Was </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-6083.htm">99-6083 -- HALE V. GIBSON -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C425EBCCACE9AA2A88256B530000089D/$file/9999009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is on death row in California for the murder of Kevin Thorpe in 1981. Because we find that Silva's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present potentially compelling mitigating evidence to the jury. Were college students returning from winter break when they passed through Madeline on their way to Oregon. Thorpe was then chained to a tree while Craig was taken inside a cabin and repeatedly sexually assaulted. Which were each buried in shallow graves. Craig was shot twice and killed by the side of a road. Murder charges against Thomas were dropped. He was eventually sentenced to eleven years and four months imprisonment for participating in the kidnaping. He was convicted of murdering both Thorpe and Craig and sentenced to life without parole. He was resentenced to life imprisonment. 1531 Because of publicity. Silva's trial was held in San Bernardino County in January 1982. That Thorpe was murdered while Thomas was having consensual sex with Craig. The three men were standing over a barrel in which some of Thorpe's belongings were being burned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013447.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/325A563427ADD31788256B6800042005/$file/9999009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013347.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9721.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who pled guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death in the Virginia courts. Dubois' conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court on September 17. Which was denied by the Virginia Supreme Court on March 15. I. The facts of this case have been adequately summarized by the Virginia Supreme Court: On November 20. Three store employees were in the store. Shari Watson was working near the rear of the store. Council and Angela Garcia were working as cashiers in the front. The register was opened and Dubois took approximately $400 in cash and fled with his accomplices. Dubois was indicted on charges of capital murder. Dubois also stated that he understood that the maximum sentence for the capital murder was death and that the trial court was not bound by the plea agreement and could impose a death sentence. After the Commonwealth summarized the evidence it would have presented at trial. It was not asking for the death penalty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May19/98-20385-CV3.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun17/98-20385-CV3.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Announcing the judgment of the court: Timothy Lanier Allen was convicted of first degree murder in a North Carolina court and sentenced to death. Allen contends (1) that the short form indictment used by the State was unconstitutional. Jail records that indicated Allen was receiving daily doses of anti withdrawal medication. Was in fact not harmless error. Were violated during jury selection in his State trial and that a Batson hearing should be held. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the North Carolina trial court's instructions on unanimity given to the jury during the sentencing phase was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0162p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We affirm the district court's disposition of the claims for which the certificate was granted. (3) that Virginia's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6301.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> Petitioner James Patrick Malicoat was convicted in Grady County. Malicoat argues that: (1) his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to argue that a carving in the courtroom bearing the inscription </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/043827P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rousan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1192B66BCDB5B74188256F32007BFD62/$file/9799017o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: (1) The first full paragraph at slip op. 1866 is deleted. (2) The first sentence of the second paragraph at slip op. at 1866 is deleted. (3) The phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0111p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court that Hill has not shown that the delay prejudiced the penalty phase of his trial first because the mitigation theory that the psychologist did present (that Hill was suffering from cocaine psychosis at the time of the murder) did not differ in material ways from the one that would have been presented with more preparation and. Because nine psychological and background assessments of Hill had already been undertaken by the time the mitigation psychologist had been hired and all of them were submitted to the jury during the sentencing hearing. Who was partially paralyzed from a stroke. Leaving Jones waiting in the car after telling her that he was stopping off to get some money from his mother although he later testified that he returned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/97-6365.man.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR> Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/97-6365.man.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR> Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4262.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether such a factor has been established beyond a reasonable doubt is for the jury this is true as a matter of both state law and constitutional command. 536 U.S. 584 (2002) but once it finds aggravating circumstances and makes a recommendation about the appropriate punishment the ultimate decision is in the judge's hands. That there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/942993P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree that a writ of habeas corpus should issue on three independent bases: (1) Driscoll was denied the effective counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because his lawyer allowed the jury to retire with the factually inaccurate impression that the victim's blood was possibly on Driscoll's knife. (2) his trial counsel was also ineffective for failing to impeach a state eyewitness using his prior inconsistent statements. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Driscoll is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center in Mineral Point. Were also charged and separately convicted of capital murder in connection with the stabbing death of Officer Jackson. Roberts was sentenced to death for his role in restraining officer Jackson while he was fatally stabbed. Carr was sentenced to life in prison without consideration of parole for fifty years. The court appointed counsel to assist Driscoll and on October (1) he was denied effective assistance of 22. (2) he was denied due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment as a result of multiple trial court errors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114273.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson was convicted in the Circuit Court of St. Was sentenced to death on the murder conviction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0458p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Adremy Dennis was convicted by an Ohio jury of the aggravated murder of Kurt Kyle and sentenced to death. Even though a shotgun blast was fired at him as he fled. He was subsequently convicted of aggravated murder. Was wearing a long black leather coat and told Pizer. You are going to die tonight. You are going to die. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/049004p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Steven Shelton was convicted by a Delaware jury of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Shelton argues first that trial counsel was ineffective in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of his trial. Shelton asserts that his right to a fair sentencing hearing was violated by the trial court's limitation on the scope of his allocution. We agree with the District Court's ruling that Shelton's counsel was not ineffective in his investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence and that Shelton's right to a fair hearing was not violated by the trial judge's limitation of Shelton's statement (called allocution) to the sentencing jury. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 The factual and procedural background of this case is well documented in the prior opinions of the District Court and the Delaware state courts. Mannon's skull was completely shattered. His pockets were turned inside out. His empty wallet was lying on the ground nearby. Outten and the two Shelton brothers were indicted for first degree murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/94-8735.man.html">CARGILL V. TURPIN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cargill v. (1997) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E6D73AB35929DB088256C08005A8578/$file/0099000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WOODFORD At the penalty phase of a trial in which a death sentence is at stake. We are confronted here with the issue of whether. Directing the jury to consider any circumstance </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/94-8735.man.html">CARGILL V. TURPIN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cargill v. (1997) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6013.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Marty Sirmons is substituted for Mike Mullin as Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. <hr> Jimmy Dale Bland. Bland was convicted of one count of first degree malice aforethought murder. Defended on the ground that the killing was neither malice aforethought murder nor felony murder. Rains was romantically involved with Mr. Bland testified that the two men were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/989011.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will dismiss the appeal. Hammer was a state prisoner transferred to the federal system from Oklahoma pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 5003 and Marti was a federal prisoner serving a sentence for bank robbery. Thereafter the case was tried to the jury but only with respect to the sentence. Their testimony is chronicled in the district court's opinion. The psychiatrists canvassed the range of cognitive and emotional capacities relevant to the question whether Hammer was competent to waive his rights and whether his waiver was voluntary. They concluded that Hammer was fully competent. That his decision to forego an appeal and ask for the immediate imposition and carrying out of the sentence of death was a competent and well reasoned decision. The district court also noted that the parties stipulated that none of the defense experts who testified at trial suggested that Hammer was incompetent at any relevant time. 1 On the basis of the foregoing. The district court found that Hammer was competent to waive his rights and that the waiver was voluntary. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/341AE060AC40C33688256D78007998D6/$file/0010252.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even if the death penalty is not sought. Williams was the target of sustained DEA investigation for cocaine trafficking in Tucson. Keyes was to serve as a key witness against Williams at trial. 10798 UNITED STATES v. Michael Waggoner were longtime friends. Waggoner stated that he was </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/341ae060ac40c33688256d78007998d6/$FILE/0010252.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even if the death penalty is not sought. Williams was the target of sustained DEA investigation for cocaine trafficking in Tucson. Keyes was to serve as a key witness against Williams at trial. 10798 UNITED STATES v. Michael Waggoner were longtime friends. Waggoner stated that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2088.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Porter</U> were on brief. This case raises the question of the applicability of the death penalty to defendants charged with certain federal crimes in the United States Courts in Puerto Rico.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR> His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F17DCBBD20709FA882571A2004B932A/$file/0299004.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. I. Factual Background The facts of the murder of Denise Williams have been recounted in numerous prior decisions in state and federal courts. 1 and are recited only briefly here. Hoffman was employed by Richard Holmes. Holmes was arrested for distributing controlled substances. After Holmes was released on bail. ARAVE 7337 and told Williams that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9821.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are as follows: 2 In early February 1993. Who was age 20. The bullets were designed for police use. This type of bullet is referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/004079P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND The facts underlying Moore's initial conviction and sentencing in Nebraska state court in 1980 are undisputed and have been repeated. If the driver was young. Moore was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to death by a three judge panel in 1980. Which was denied by the state district court in 1983. This denial was affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Stat. § 29 2523(1)(d)2 was unconstitutionally vague. Both on its face and as Section 29 2523(1)(d) provides: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR> His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B0C4DE16989259F88256EE1007AB883/$file/0499003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is scheduled to be executed on August 12. I Terry Dennis was charged with first degree murder in the Nevada state district court in Washoe County on March 29. Was evaluated by a psychiatrist. Was determined to be competent to stand trial. Was able to assist in his own defense. The court found that Dennis was competent to enter a guilty plea. Evidence was presented that Dennis suffered from mental illness including bipolar disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder that he had a long history of suicide attempts. Butko was appointed as habeas counsel on April 25. Before his appeal was heard. The letter to the Nevada A detailed description of the crime is found in the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion affirming Dennis's conviction and sentence. Butko is doing all she can to delay things hoping I'll change my mind but I've been thinking this over for quite some time now and I assure you my mind's made up and I know what I'm doing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Turrentine was convicted in the Oklahoma courts on four counts of first degree murder. He was sentenced to death. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He is currently an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary under the custody of Warden Mike Mullin. Background The facts as found by the state court are. The facts of this case are both sad and horrific. Richardson was having an affair with two other men. Knew of these affairs because she was apparently a friend and confidant of Ms. Stevenson were cheating him out of money. Told her that he was at Ms. Richardson's house and that things were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May17/02-10717-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The most salient of which is that he was deprived of the Fifth Amendment right to stand trial only on crimes set forth in an indictment issued by a grand jury. The government concedes that the indictment is constitutionally deficient inasmuch as it fails specifically to charge the aggravating factors that render Robinson eligible for the death penalty. That the error is harmless. son challenges neither the sufficiency nor the admissibility of the evidence. B. The murder of Johnny Lee Shelton is a case of mistaken identity. Shelton was similar in appearance to a man named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-6204.htm">00-6204 -- HAWKINS V. MULLIN -- 05/22/2002<BR></A><BR> Which is not a specifically enumerated felony supporting a first degree murder conviction under Oklahoma law. We hold that the Oklahoma appellate court's interpretation was not unforeseeable and therefore did not deprive Hawkins of due process. Were also in the car at the time. His original plan was to kidnap Thompson and hold her for ransom. Were staying with the couple at that time. <p> At the house. 2) Thompson's murder was especially heinous. Hawkins is a continuing threat to society. Hawkins will be entitled to habeas relief only if he can establish that the state courts' resolution of his claims was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0381p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue on appeal is whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing. Facts The following facts are taken from the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion on direct appeal. The apartment was otherwise exceptionally neat and clean. A stack stereo with two speakers were missing from Bradford's apartment. She was five feet. A portion of her lungs was missing. Were wound eight. Wound ten punctured the liver and was no more than four inches in depth. Showed no signs of hemorrhage and thus were inflicted after death or when the heart was not pumping sufficient blood. Six were superficial. All the wounds could have been inflicted by the same. Which was about four blocks from Bradford's house. Smith was not at home. Telling him he would </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/05a0406p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While that motion was pending. He concluded that each of Moore's ineffective assistance claims was either procedurally defaulted or meritless. That each alleged trial error was meritless. That the prosecutorial misconduct claims were procedurally defaulted. That the due process claim was procedurally defaulted and meritless. That the Miranda claims were procedurally defaulted. We may not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless we conclude that the state court's decision: (1) was contrary to. Or (2) was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. A defendant (or petitioner) must show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient. The proceeding's result would have been different. Although Moore's counsel was deficient for failing to impeach Riddle. Therefore was not ineffective assistance under Strickland. Blair's alibi was not air tight he could have committed the murder and still been at the license bureau during Riddle's time frame. Even if the Kentucky court might have undervalued Riddle's testimony2 (so we could possibly disagree with its ultimate decision). </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-6364.htm">99-6364 -- MITCHELL V. GIBSON -- 08/13/2001<BR></A><BR> Mitchell's conviction was not constitutionally infirm. Mitchell's conviction and sentence are set out in the opinion disposing of his direct criminal appeal. Will be recited in this opinion in detail when necessary to our consideration of the individual issues before us. Mitchell was adjudicated a juvenile offender for the rape of a twelve year old neighborhood girl and was incarcerated in a juvenile correctional facility for approximately three years prior to the events at issue here. He was released on December 23. Was a college student who worked and volunteered at the Pilot Recreation Community Center. The Center served disadvantaged youth and was located near Mr. Scott was working at the Center with its director. Ross was leaving. Mitchell was wearing a rust or reddish colored stocking cap. Scott's car was gone and that the Center was not locked properly. Mitchell was standing in the doorway. Biggs that the Center was closed because the bathrooms were being cleaned. There were no cars in the parking lot and the building was empty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/962581P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sweet was arrested and charged with first degree murder. He was tried and found guilty. Finding as aggravating circumstances that the murder was committed against a peace officer engaged in his official duties and that it was committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest. Sweet was sentenced to death. Which became effective shortly before Sweet was sentenced. At the time Sweet was sentenced. Rule 29.15 required the defendant to file a motion in the sentencing court within thirty days after the transcript was filed in the direct appeal. The direct appeal was then suspended and later consolidated with the appeal from the judgment on the 29.15 motion. A Rule 29.15 motion is now filed after the disposition of the direct appeal. More than four months after counsel was appointed. This amended petition was not timely. Because Sweet was required to file any amendment no later than sixty days after the appointment of counsel. The Missouri Supreme Court held that the claims raised for the first time in Sweet's amended 29.15 motion were not properly raised and declined to consider them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0128.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Henry Lee Hunt was convicted in the Superior Court of Robeson County. Hunt contends (1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his state court trial because his counsel failed to present any mitigating evidence and because his counsel's closing argument was inadequate. Because we conclude that the state court's postconviction decision rejecting these claims was neither contrary to clearly established federal law. Dottie Ransom's motive was to obtain the $25. Hunt threatened to kill Locklear and Dottie Ransom if Hunt was not paid within 30 days. Was </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6217a.htm">97-6217A -- STOUFFER V. REYNOLDS -- 01/15/1999<BR></A><BR> Whose estranged wife was dating Petitioner. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to death on the first conviction and life imprisonment on the second. Only six of which are preserved for our review. Pivotal to them is whether Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel during the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. Which is most hampered in assessing counsel's performance during the penalty phase. Who was dating Velva Ivens after she had separated from Doug. Told her he was going out to pick up his mail at his post office box. Rushed in telling Doug he feared Velva and the girls were endangered. Telling the operator Petitioner was the shooter and directing the police to his wife's home. <p> Petitioner's version differed. Was there. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0345p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This court is again faced with the same claims. Having considered the arguments of the parties regarding the two claims that are before us. The petition was amended on September 16. This court's review of the state court's decision is governed by the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Because factual determinations by state courts are entitled to a presumption of correctness. We will describe the factual circumstances surrounding the murder for which House was convicted by quoting from the Tennessee Supreme Court's opinion denying him relief in his direct appeal: The victim of the homicide was Mrs. Muncey was in her late twenties. Her children were about eight and ten years old at the time of her death on July 13. In March 1985 appellant Paul Gregory House was released from a prison in Utah and moved to the rural community in which the Muncey family lived. Which was located about two miles from the Muncey home. He was permitted to drive his mother's car from time to time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6217.htm">97-6217 -- STOUFFER V. REYNOLDS -- 01/15/1999<BR></A><BR> Whose estranged wife was dating Petitioner. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to death on the first conviction and life imprisonment on the second. Only six of which are preserved for our review. Pivotal to them is whether Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel during the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. Which is most hampered in assessing counsel's performance during the penalty phase. Who was dating Velva Ivens after she had separated from Doug. Told her he was going out to pick up his mail at his post office box. Rushed in telling Doug he feared Velva and the girls were endangered. Telling the operator Petitioner was the shooter and directing the police to his wife's home. <p> Petitioner's version differed. Was there. </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/99/05/963609P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was 22. Were drinking and driving around Doniphan. All of the gas stations in Doniphan were closed. Once Allen was naked. Was too frightened. Seeing Allen was still alive. Lingar and Smith were charged with first degree murder. Smith later pleaded guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to ten years in prison. A gun expert established the bullets found in Allen were fired from a Winchester .22 and could have been fired from Lingar's rifle. A blood expert testified blood stains in Lingar's car could have come from Allen. Who testified Lingar was </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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9819.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Yeatts now maintains that the state trial court violated his constitutional right to due process by failing to permit him to inform the jury that he would not be eligible for parole for 30 years if sentenced to life imprisonment and that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to adequately voir dire prospective members of the jury concerning their ability to consider a life sentence. We refer to Respondent 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://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/972100P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was there. Who was moving to California with Arnold the next day. They were in Rodden's bed. He was bleeding from deep cuts in his right hand. Which could have resulted from his hand slipping forward onto a knife blade as he stabbed someone. Her faced was bruised and her arm was broken. Cords were tied around her left wrist and right ankle. Her body was blistered and charred in spots from being burned. Her blood was on the knife Rodden carried in fleeing the scene. He was 2 sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for fifty years. Rodden was later tried for and convicted of murdering Trunnel. Rodden's reliance is misplaced. Must be cumulative if there is to be deterrence for extra offenses. </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/2002/01/99-6361.htm">99-6361 -- SALLAHDIN V. GIBSON -- 01/04/2002<BR></A><BR> Raising the following issues: (1) four challenges concerning the jury and whether Sallahdin was deprived of due process of law and a fair and impartial jury. (2) whether the information was constitutionally adequate. (3) whether the trial court's failure to define life without parole for the jury was constitutional error. (5) whether the two aggravators applied to his sentencing are supported by sufficient evidence. (6) whether the continuing threat aggravator is unconstitutional because it is vague and applied in a standardless manner. (7) whether the jury instructions failed to inform the jury that it did not have to be unanimous to find and apply mitigating circumstances to his sentence. (8) whether Sallahdin was deprived of admissible mitigation evidence concerning steroid induced psychosis. 1291. <p> Sallahdin's most troubling challenge concerns whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence of the effects of Sallahdin's steroid use on his behavior at the time of the crime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0237p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Six claims were certified for appeal. The final claim (6) is that the cumulative effects of the above errors deprived Keith of his rights to effective assistance of counsel. The Ohio Supreme Court determined the facts that are quoted below. Were at Marichell's apartment in the Bucyrus Estates. Marichell was babysitting her young cousins. Momentarily diverted from a basketball game he was watching on television. Appellant appeared to have his turtleneck shirt pulled up over the bottom part of his face and even drank a glass of water through it. Appellant repeatedly scolded Marichell for using his first name when she asked what he was doing and why. You should have thought about this before your brother started ratting on people. </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/sept98/95-6776.man.html">BALDWIN V. JOHNSON (9/1/1998, NO. 95-6776)<BR></A><BR> Convicted Baldwin of the capital felony of robbery during which the victim was intentionally killed. Baldwin contended that the State of Alabama did not have jurisdiction to try him where the charged offense. (1) whether Baldwin's confessions were knowingly and voluntarily made. </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//sept98/95-6776.man.html">BALDWIN V. JOHNSON (9/1/1998, NO. 95-6776)<BR></A><BR> Convicted Baldwin of the capital felony of robbery during which the victim was intentionally killed. Baldwin contended that the State of Alabama did not have jurisdiction to try him where the charged offense. (1) whether Baldwin's confessions were knowingly and voluntarily made. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952918P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was twelve. Who was seventeen. Both girls were special education students. and Petary said they were interested in purchasing the family's truck. Which the family was selling to finance Don's open heart surgery. agreed to accompany Six and Petary on a test drive. onto a gravel road and stopped. tape around her hands. waiting outside. Where Don was Holding butcher knives to the Allens' throats. Who was obviously pregnant. Who was trapped After Six jumped into the car. Heading south. was found in a ditch in Missouri. stabbed in the neck. Christine Allen testified about the actions of Six and Petary on the evening Kathy was kidnapped. penalty phases. Stella testified Six had slit her throat and Christine Six did not testify during the guilt or suggested Six was under Petary's During the penalty phase. Seven Six's mother The but his attorneys testified Six had raped her. influence and Petary had killed Kathy. members of Six's family testified Six is a good person. testified Petary had abused both his own children and Six as a child. </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/F4BCD33ACCFC0D3D88256E5A00707BD5/$file/9799030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dissent by Judge Browning 1 Judge Gould was drawn to replace Judge Wiggins. Cooper was sentenced to death. Without regard to when the petition was filed. Cooper needs a certificate of appealability (COA) rather than a certificate of probable cause (CPC) for this court to have jurisdiction. As Cooper could not have known that a COA rather than a CPC was required. Cooper escaped from the California Insti 2 A memorandum disposition was filed December 15. Part IV of this opinion is the same as Parts 4 7 of the disposition. 8690 tute for Men (CIM). Who was spending the night at the Ryens' home. A blood stained khaki green button identical to the buttons on field jackets issued at the state prison from which Cooper escaped was found on the rug. Hair found in the bathroom sink was consistent with that of Jessica and Doug Ryen. A bloodstained rope in the Lease house bedroom was similar to a bloodstained rope found on the Ryens' driveway. A hatchet covered with dried blood and human hair that was found near the Ryens' home was missing from the Lease house. </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/9C3DCB6A0EAA839488256A820062C035/$file/9799030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dissent by Judge Browning 1 Judge Gould was drawn to replace Judge Wiggins. Cooper was sentenced to death. Without regard to when the petition was filed. Cooper needs a certificate of appealability (COA) rather than a certificate of probable cause (CPC) for this court to have jurisdiction. As Cooper could not have known that a COA rather than a CPC was required. Cooper escaped from the California Insti 2 A memorandum disposition was filed December 15. Part IV of this opinion is the same as Parts 4 7 of the disposition. 8690 tute for Men (CIM). Who was spending the night at the Ryens' home. A blood stained khaki green button identical to the buttons on field jackets issued at the state prison from which Cooper escaped was found on the rug. Hair found in the bathroom sink was consistent with that of Jessica and Doug Ryen. A bloodstained rope in the Lease house bedroom was similar to a bloodstained rope found on the Ryens' driveway. A hatchet covered with dried blood and human hair that was found near the Ryens' home was missing from the Lease house. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516363.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted a certificate of appealability on Jennings's claim that his sentence was rendered unconstitutional by the application of two invalid aggravating factors that the murder was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6110E37D1BB6235888256F0A005794A0/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BC632E5F14267BF488256DC20074CDEF/$file/0099000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Payton was sentenced to death. 15172 PAYTON v. At issue here is Payton's contention that the jury did not consider. Directing the jury to consider any circumstance </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1712p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Most of whom were Banks' children as well. Who was born from an interracial relationship. Apparently committed the murders because he preferred his children to die rather than grow up in what he thought was a racist world. Each time concluding that Banks was competent to stand trial. Banks' attorney attempted to establish that Banks was legally insane at the time of the offenses. That his capacity was diminished by alcohol and pills. The district attorney were conspiring against him. The court upheld the trial court's determination that Banks was competent to stand trial. Found that there was ample evidence that Banks had the requisite intent to kill his victims. He was not competent to waive his right to counsel. He was not competent to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. He was not competent to be tried and sentenced. The trial court's failure to voir dire prospective jurors on whether they automatically would impose death on a finding of first degree murder was in violation of Morgan v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0457p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary issue is whether counsel for the defendant provided an adequate defense under the Sixth Amendment as incorporated in the Due Process Clause. Fred Jurek was counsel for the defendant. He was later disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. After the defendant was found guilty of murder by a jury at the guilt phase of the case. Counsel did nothing to discover what was available or introduce it in evidence. We will first set out the standards governing the assistance of defense counsel in capital cases at No. 00 3663 Hamblin v. It was only 70 years ago in the notorious but seminal Scottsboro Boys case. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611684.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only issues on which Stewart was granted a certificate of appealability are whether Stewart's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to: (1) provide the mental health expert witness with all available information to identify possible mitigating circumstances. While he was hitchhiking. Who was visiting the grandparents. Trial counsel argued that Stewart was guilty of aggravated battery and manslaughter or. Trial counsel thus believed that Stewart's testimony </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/034777p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to extend the jurisprudence regarding ineffective assistance of counsel to counsel's failure to predict the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's later ruling regarding the non retroactivity of an amended death penalty statute. Who is currently serving a life sentence for a 1976 homicide. We issued a certificate of appealability ( </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/opndir/99/05/982456P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taylor was shot. The evidence was unclear whether Shurn. More shots were fired. The court instructed the jury to consider as aggravating circumstances whether Taylor's murder involved </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/1998/02/97-6179.htm">97-6179 -- CASTRO V. WARD -- 02/18/1998<BR></A><BR> Castro was arrested for the armed robbery and felony murder of Rhonda Pappan in Ponca City. He was placed in the Kay County jail. Castro was convicted and sentenced to death in this case. The basic facts of the crime are the following: Mr. Castro with the Cox murder was filed in Noble County. Castro was found guilty in Kay County of the armed robbery and felony murder of Ms. Castro was arraigned on the murder and theft charges involving Ms. The statutory aggravator supporting the death sentence was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-6179.htm">97-6179 -- CASTRO V. WARD -- 03/02/1998<BR></A><BR> Is withdrawn. The court's corrected opinion is filed herewith. Castro was arrested for the armed robbery and felony murder of Rhonda Pappan in Ponca City. He was placed in the Kay County jail. Castro was convicted and sentenced to death in this case. The basic facts of the crime are the following: Mr. Castro with the Cox murder was filed in Noble County. Castro was found guilty in Kay County of the armed robbery and felony murder of Ms. Castro was arraigned on the murder and theft charges involving Ms. The statutory aggravator supporting the death sentence was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4B4B3C3D9B71FCC88256D4E007A82D7/$file/0199014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Larry David Davis was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. As they were driving. She first tried to end his advances by telling him she was a lesbian. She was finally able to persuade him to stop by telling him that she would have sex with him in a motel in town. While Davis was pumping gas. Saying that she was returning to New York within days. When asked what he was doing. It was there that he met Dawn Holman. He was standing on the sidewalk in front of the store smoking marijuana when a man. That woman was Dawn Holman. Holman's body was found around 5 a.m. by a greenskeeper at a nearby golf course. Her car was partially in a ditch about DAVIS v. The front passenger door was heavily damaged. Appeared to have hit a nearby telephone pole. The medical examiner testified that Holman's body showed evidence of sexual assault: her body was found with her bra pulled down below her chest. She was strangled. Her anus was dilated and smeared with fecal matter. Noted that her skirt was heavily stained with semen and fecal material. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0385p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. The petition is denied. It is uncontested in this case that defense counsel failed to conduct any investigation. (5) a psychiatrist's report stating that Petitioner was not mentally impaired and that no mitigating factors existed. It cannot be reasonably argued that submitting such information was a legitimate strategy simply because the report also mentioned that Petitioner was a good football player and considered himself to be 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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6146EB287D3927188256E2800820C29/$file/0199007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. 2003 is amended as follows: The language beginning with the last paragraph on page 808. Is replaced with the following (with footnotes renumbered in the remainder of the opinion): Recognizing that Gray's behavior might be labeled a tactical decision. Was both completely uninformed and so unreasonable as to be constitutionally deficient. Counsel may also choose not to pursue a particular investigation if such a choice is reasonable. Gray was faced with a client who had freely confessed extensive involvement with two homicides prior to Gray's involvement in the case. Gray's decision not to investigate that crime was objectively reasonable.1 Beardslee insists that the strategic choice to offer complete cooperation was so misguided that it cannot be constitutionally permissible. The judge hearing the motion to substitute counsel said he would have adopted the same strategy. Although in hindsight some other strategy may have been preferable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3480.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pierre was tried and convicted of the murders in Illinois state court in 1983. Concluding they were not procedurally defaulted. Arguing that his counsel was ineffective at the pleading stage and that his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily. Pierre will receive a new sentencing hearing.1 For the following reasons. Pierre was involved in a brutal murder for hire scheme in 1982. Just three weeks after he was paroled from prison. Barry Wilson was dating one Jackie Gibons. This is no longer a death penalty case because there is currently no such penalty awaiting the defendant. Wilson's attempt at murder was thwarted when he fell through a window at the Gibons' home and abruptly fled. 000 was discussed). Pierre to her father (Sybil Gibons was not at home). After Benjamin was dead. Jackie told the detective that her father was out and that she would have him return the call when he came home. Pierre was waiting in the hallway and he bludgeoned Sybil Gibons to death. Pierre was to accompany Wilson to dispose of the bodies in Arkansas (or California. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0173p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. was convicted of the 1992 murders of Sheriff Steven Bennett and Deputy Sheriff Arthur Briscoe. His cabin was at the end of gravel road. Baze was a twice convicted felon and was wanted No. 03 5112 Baze v. Baze was in Ohio. Informed the police that she did not know where he was when they came to arrest her husband in mid January. She then phoned Baze to warn him that the police were looking for him. Deputy Sheriff Briscoe heard that Baze was back in town and proceeded to Baze's cabin to arrest him. Baze was inside. He later told the Louisville Courier Journal that he circled around to hide behind a stump behind the spot where the police would have to leave their cars. Baze's wife Becky was yelling at them from the porch of the cabin. They had their backs to the woods where Baze was hiding. Who was also at the house. Causing Bennett to turn his head back to his right to see where the gunfire was coming from. The policemen who were driving up the road to lend support testified that the first 6 10 shots they heard were rifle fire. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0313.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Richard Tipton were convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia for an array of criminal activity. We are now presented with four separate appeals. Which we have consolidated. Because we are unable to improve on that summary. It is set forth in haec verba: Recounted in summary form and in the light most favorable to the Government. Cory Johnson were principal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-6308.htm">01-6308 -- DARKS V. MULLIN -- 04/11/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD82194097E1066888256C3000546E6D/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-2916.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GRIMES (6/8/1998, NO. 96-2916)<BR></A><BR> We hold that the district court did not err by denying Grimes' motion to suppress and that there was no reversible error in Grimes' trial or sentencing procedures. (2) he was operating a business on company time using company materials. (3) there was a discrepancy in his overtime hours. Suggested that Todaro wanted him out so that the assistant maintenance supervisor could have the job.</P> <P> After he was fired. Grimes told a friend that he was going to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212054ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-2916.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GRIMES (6/8/1998, NO. 96-2916)<BR></A><BR> We hold that the district court did not err by denying Grimes' motion to suppress and that there was no reversible error in Grimes' trial or sentencing procedures. (2) he was operating a business on company time using company materials. (3) there was a discrepancy in his overtime hours. Suggested that Todaro wanted him out so that the assistant maintenance supervisor could have the job.</P> <P> After he was fired. Grimes told a friend that he was going to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2BB9BB2F7E1B07E88256E5A00707D05/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F416371F2333CA0E88256AE2007CDC6C/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/963789P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The State contends Roberts is barred from asserting this claim. So Caldwell is not being applied retroactively on collateral review. Granting relief only if there is manifest injustice. Were prosecuted separately by the same State's attorney. Driscoll was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Concluding his death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because the prosecutor misled the sentencing jury into believing the judge was ultimately responsible for the sentencing decision. 2 Throughout [Driscoll's] trial. The prosecution made statements to the jury that were calculated to diminish the degree of responsibility the jury would feel in recommending a sentence of death. When Driscoll and Roberts were tried. The court could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FBC5A55C410F97D188257168007CB310/$file/0599002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to death in 1987. We have considered his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On three previous occasions and have already vacated Petitioner's death sentence and ordered a new penalty phase trial.1 In this fourth appeal. The case is remanded with instructions to grant The prior decisions are Morris v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6086.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> Applicant Richard Allen Thornburg was convicted in Oklahoma state court on three counts of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The district court and a member of this court have each granted certificates of appealability (COA). All three were armed. Because he was not coming back. Had been shot in the foot and his forehead was bruised and bloody. He was interrupted when Kevin Smith <hr> arrived at Scott's house to retrieve his girlfriend's purse. The door was answered by Donnie Scott. Who was not home. Once they were inside Poteet's house. He told Poteet that he was going to shoot him. Thornburg then told Matheson that Matheson was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/99-13479.OPN.html">PUTMAN V. HEAD (10/9/2001, NO. 99-13479)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant William Howard Putman was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death for each count on September 17. ISSUES FOR REVIEW</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/022389P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury also returned a verdict of death and a death sentence was imposed. The government appealed and we reversed.1 Now before the court is Lee's direct appeal of his conviction and sentence. The Muellers were not at home when Lee and Kehoe arrived so they waited. The bodies were discovered in Lake Darnelle near Russellville. 2 and he and Lee were apprehended by law enforcement in 1997 after some of Mueller's guns had been traced to Kehoe. Several others were indicted on December 12. Lee appeared in court for arraignment and was ordered detained until trial. A superceding indictment was filed. The indictment alleged that the APR was a RICO enterprise designed to start a revolution in the United States in order to create a new nation and that members of the APR. Prior to trial the conspiracy to commit robbery and firearm charges were dismissed. Lee and Kehoe were jointly tried. Would have no part in the killing of Sarah Powell so Kehoe had done it alone. Haines testified that Lee was involved in Kehoe's white supremacist movement and that he had tried to recruit him into the APR several times. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/99-13479.OPN.html">PUTMAN V. HEAD (10/9/2001, NO. 99-13479)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant William Howard Putman was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death for each count on September 17. ISSUES FOR REVIEW</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2610_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael Lambert was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for killing a Muncie. Concluding that it was successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) and could not. The facts in this case are outlined in our 2004 opinion and. Lambert was arrested for public intoxication by a Muncie. He was searched. While being driven to the police station by Officer Gregg Winters (Winters was not the officer who conducted the search). Lambert was somehow able to retrieve the gun and shoot Winters five times in the back of the head and neck. Lambert was charged with the intentional murder of Officer Winters. The court held that certain victim impact evidence was improperly admitted into evidence before the jury and that its admission was not harmless error. That the death sentence was proper. Raising claims that are not at issue here. Petitions for writs of certiorari were presented to the United States Supreme Court and denied. Arguing that the Supreme Court of Indiana erred when it engaged in appellate reweighing of the aggravating 4 No. 05 2610 and mitigating factors and then upheld his death sentence despite finding that the trial court's admission of the victimimpact testimony before the jury was not harmless error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4E5E0F7E45CF1FF788256CEE00810FCE/$file/0199007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was acquainted with her friends and knew of their involvement with drugs. Beardslee claimed he was especially fearful of the violent Rutherford. Geddling was told she was being taken to a hospital. He later claimed he thought she was already dead and had merely pretended to shoot her in order to demonstrate his involvement and impress Rutherford. Where Benjamin was still being held. He later claimed he thought she was already dead when he cut her throat and was only acting out of fear of Rutherford. Geddling's body was discovered the next day. He was charged with both homicides on May 3. He had already told police he was on parole from a prior homicide in Missouri. He was also charged with the special circumstance of a previous murder conviction. He agreed to have Beardslee cooperate fully with the authorities against his co defendants in order to generate mitigation at the penalty phase of the trial. Beardslee's motion was denied. Beardslee's co defendants were tried first. Forrester was acquitted of the Geddling killing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913479.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant William Howard Putman was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death for each count on September 17. I. ISSUES FOR REVIEW As this appeal was initiated after April 24. It is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Are worthy of a COA. Whether Appellant's right to due process was denied by the prosecutor's alleged failure to disclose exculpatory material. Whether Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. Appellant's claims under this issue are based on Brady v. Appellant alleges the following items were material and withheld by the prosecution: (1) a portion of a summary of Appellant's interview with a state psychologist. While Appellant was incarcerated. Appellant's claims under this issue are based on Strickland v. Appellant argues (in 3 2 1 whether Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. Appellant has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right and is not entitled to a COA.3 For the third issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0113.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His primary contention is that he was deprived of a fair trial because the jury was subjected to improper third party communications and the jury considered prejudicial factual information that was not in evidence. We reverse the decision of the district court only to the extent that the district court denied Fullwood's request for an evidentiary hearing as to whether one of the jurors was improperly influenced by her husband and whether the jury improperly learned that Fullwood had already been sentenced to death for this murder in a previous capital sentencing proceeding. We conclude that the state court's refusal to grant relief was neither contrary to. I. Fullwood and Deidre Waters were romantically involved for three and one half years. Fullwood was the father of Deidre's child Michelle. Deidre went to the home of Michael and Camille Hawks where Deidre was employed as a day care worker. Hawks was still at home. Deidre told defendant's mother that she had taken out the warrant because she was tired of defendant threatening to cut her head off and to cut her heart out. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/02-6055.htm">02-6055 -- SMITH V. MULLIN -- 07/29/2004<BR></A><BR> Was sentenced to death for the 1993 murders of his wife and stepchildren. Smith] was married to Jennifer Smith. The rest of the house was searched. The bodies of three more children were found. The bodies were determined to be those of Jennifer Smith and her four children. They were determined to have been dead for at least two to three days and up to . . . two weeks or more. <p> The afternoon of that same day. He was turned over to the Oklahoma City Police and placed under arrest. A federal court is precluded from granting habeas relief on any claim adjudicated on the merits by the state court. Unless the state proceeding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/954018A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9925.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 1 the section is corrected to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9913.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts underlying the murder charges against Goins were set forth in some detail by the Supreme Court of Virginia in its decision on Goins's direct appeal. Are quoted below. Where Tamika and the six other members of her family were present. Both Goins and Scott were friends of the Jones family. Who was 14 years old. Was seven months pregnant with Goins' child and recently had returned from the hospital after receiving treatment for complications related to the pregnancy. Was in her bedroom when she later heard him participating in a conversation in the kitchen. The conversation was interrupted by the 2 sound of gunfire. The shots were fired rapidly and were followed by screams. The operator asked if anyone was with her. Daphne Jones was shot four times. Both of the gunshot wounds to her head were lethal. Which indicated that the gun was fired within a few feet of her head. Jr. was shot nine times. Four of these wounds were lethal. The evidence showed that some of the shots were fired from less than </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1442_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to death in Indiana state court for the molestation and brutal murder of 10 year old Zachary Snider. The only evidence presented by the defense concerning his mental state at the time of the killing was the testimony of a psychologist who believes that mental illness is a myth. I A The underlying facts of this case are recounted in detail in the Indiana Supreme Court's decision affirming Stevens's conviction and sentence. Those facts are entitled to a presumption of correctness. They are in any event uncontested at this point. We repeat here only what is relevant to Stevens's current claims. Who was 20 years old at the time. Was convicted in Indiana state court of child molestation. He was released on probation in May 1993. Explaining in detail what had occurred and directing his brother to the bridge where the body was hidden. B After Stevens was charged with Snider's murder the State announced its intention to seek the death penalty. The case was transferred to the Tippecanoe County Superior Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/953032P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Singleton was sentenced to death in 1979 by the Circuit Court We The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele. For capital murder arising out of the death of a storekeeper whom Singleton stabbed during the course of a robbery.3 The sentence and conviction were affirmed by the Singleton v. 456 U.S. 938 (1982). petition to proceed pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure was denied without written opinion in 1982. We affirmed the district court's denial of Singleton's guilt phase Singleton was convicted under Ark. Alleging that he was incompetent to be executed and that he had not been afforded the procedural guarantees outlined in Ford v. While the state court action was pending. A case that would again have presented the issue of double counting in capital sentencing cases. An execution date was set for Singleton. Was held 3 on July 24. Who was voluntarily taking antipsychotic medication. Was competent. Rejected Singleton's double counting and actual innocence claims. unconstitutional double It is from the denial of his claim of counting that Singleton now appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D529B685DB93940D88256BA400767EF2/$file/9999031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of first degree murder. Were fired by their employer on November 8. WOODFORD 6125 were insufficient to cover future rent. They devised a plan to rob fellow employees who were also to be paid on that date. Among whom were [Timothy] Dykstra and [Michael] Wolbert. Was to be held at the home of friends in the Anaheim Hills area. Were cautious. It was then between 7 and 9 p.m. Wolbert then left the car and when he next looked at [Visciotti] he saw that [Visciotti] and Dykstra were standing face to face about two feet apart. Wolbert told [Visciotti] where the money was hidden. WOODFORD back toward Dykstra who was sitting down. Who was backing up. He was later able to attract the attention of passersby who summoned aid. Dykstra was dead when paramedics arrived. Wolbert was transported to the hospital where he underwent surgery. [Visciotti] and Hefner were arrested as they left their motel room about 9 a.m. on the morning after the robbery and murder. Was found hidden in a space behind the bathroom sink. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Richard Thomas Stitt was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on numerous federal drug and firearms related charges. That Stitt was entitled to a jury instruction and to a mitigating factor that unequivocally informed the jury that he would be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole or release if he was not sentenced to death. That the Government's use of the Stitt was sentenced to death for each of the three murders during a CCE. All of these sentences were to be served concurrently. Stitt was also sentenced to sixty months for one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. These sentences were to be served consecutively for a total of 780 months. 1 UNITED STATES v. STITT 3 testimony of cooperating witnesses violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 201(c)(2) (West 2000) because witnesses were promised benefits in exchange for their testimony. The Government introduced evidence that Stitt was the leader of a CCE that distributed in excess of 150 kilograms of crack cocaine in the Portsmouth. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0466p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> White was sentenced to death. (8) whether White's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination was violated by the introduction at trial of statements made by White during a competency evaluation. (9) whether White was entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing in district court. Was believable as an impartial juror was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Told her that he was not going to his job at Kroger's warehouse. White was intoxicated and wanted to be left alone. He began screaming at his mother after she asked him to quiet down because she was concerned that someone might call the police due to the noise. White was afraid of a confrontation with the police because he was on probation for carrying a concealed weapon and believed that the police had harassed him on prior occasions. While White was struggling with a clip for a gun. Trooper Gross called in the car's license plate number and learned that the car was registered to White and that White did not have driving privileges due to a prior drunk driving conviction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul06/04-10245-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of Counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul06/04-70010-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of Counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug03/04-10245-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment 2 under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug03/04-70010-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment 2 under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-6311.htm">99-6311 -- CANNON V. GIBSON -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR> This court concludes that Cannon is not entitled to habeas relief. Factual Background</strong> <p> Cannon and his co defendant Loyd LaFevers were convicted in state court of murdering eighty four year old Addie Hawley. Who was driving the car. Although there was evidence presented at trial that indicated that Hawley was raped. They drove the car a short distance away and also set it on fire. <p> Rescue personnel were called to the scene soon after the fires were set. She was still alive. App. 1992) (noting that facts of Cannon's case were detailed in the OCCA's original opinion in <em>Lafevers</em>). Concluding they were not supported by sufficient evidence. To raise the following five claims on appeal: (1) statements Cannon made after his arrest were improperly admitted at trial because the statements were fruits of an illegal arrest and detention. (2) evidence seized during a warrantless search of Cannon's home was improperly admitted at trial. (3) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective during the guilt phase of the trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/951098P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Randolph Reeves was convicted of two counts of felony murder and sentenced to death. Reeves was granted habeas corpus relief in federal district court. That the district court erred in deciding that Reeves was not entitled to a jury instruction on lesser included offenses. I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are set out fully in the Nebraska Supreme Court's opinion in Reeves's state appeal. Is in order. Mesner and Reeves were friends. Were in fact related. Mesner was mortally wounded. Was able to find a telephone and dial 911. Reeves was charged with two counts of murder in the course of or while attempting a sexual assault in the first degree. Was convicted on both counts. The district court granted relief on the ground that the Nebraska Supreme Court did not have authority under state law to independently reweigh aggravating and mitigating factors in affirming a death sentence. Including a claim that the trial court improperly denied his request to have the jury instructed on lesser included offenses of felony murder. </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//aug2001/98-8930.man.html">FUGATE V. HEAD (8/16/2001, NO. 98-8930)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </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/aug2001/98-8930.man.html">FUGATE V. HEAD (8/16/2001, NO. 98-8930)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951098P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reeves was convicted of two counts of felony murder and sentenced to death by the State of Nebraska. His convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court both on appeal and in postconviction actions. Was in a near stupor when he left to go visit Ms. Mesner and Reeves1 were distantly related. Mesner was stabbed seven times. Who was visiting with her young daughter. Walked in on the struggle and was also stabbed by Reeves. Lamm's wounds were almost immediately fatal. Mesner was able to make her way downstairs to summon help. Reeves was arrested and given Miranda warnings. Reeves stated that he was too drunk to remember much. Reeves is an American Indian who was adopted and raised by a Quaker family. 2 1 Reeves' blood alcohol level was .149 when it was tested approximately three hours after the assault. Reeves' blood alcohol level may have been as high as .230 at the time of the crimes. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the peyote buttons he ingested would have exaggerated or counteracted the effects of the alcohol. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/973067P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Wilson Chambers was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing Jerry Oestricker. We have reviewed the claims that have been certified as appealable. Were camped near the Meramec River in Arnold. The owner of the bar was summoned from home. The Turners were gone. Chambers asked about borrowing their boat and was told that the boat was drydocked. What happened next is the subject of considerable dispute. Once Chambers and Oestricker were outside. No one claims that the evidence was not sufficient to support this verdict. Three separate juries have found Chambers guilty of capital murder. His first conviction was reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court on the basis of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on self defense. Chambers's second conviction was affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Which was denied by the circuit court. His petition was denied by the District Court. Holding that Chambers's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to interview or call a witness who could 3 have testified in support of Chambers's theory of self defense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is clear that this extremely probative testimony requires that we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. Where his opinion goes too far is in its accusations of fraud on the court. While his explanation for the omission of the Sultan deposition from the official record before the court is possible in the narrowest sense. Sultan's deposition was taken by trial counsel for respondent. Was not included with the evidence submitted as part of Bell's motion for summary judgment. A genuine mistake was made. One which was not realized until a different attorney looked at the case. To conclude otherwise is to disbelieve sworn testimony by an officer of the court. When in fact it was submitted to the panel prior to oral argument as part of the abeyance motion. We believe it is appropriate to use our inherent equitable powers to expand the record on appeal to consider the deposition. Where through error or accident material matters are omitted or misstated. While some circuit courts have held that Rule 10(e) allows the inclusion of material the district court did not consider. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/971576P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The brothers were caught. Ramsey first asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel and due process because his trial attorney had a conflict of interest. Ramsey asserts a conflict existed at the posttrial hearing with respect to the letters' production because his attorney was at risk of being found to have provided ineffective assistance during the trial in failing to use the letters. Thus the court should have appointed an attorney in private practice to advise him. His trial attorney's failure to introduce the letters as evidence at trial was not deficient performance. Billy testified his trial testimony was truthful and the letters were fabricated. The Missouri Supreme Court concluded Ramsey's </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/9830.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Virginia court convicted Bobby Lee Ramdass of capital murder and sentenced him to death for the murder of Mohammed Kayani during the robbery of the convenience store where Kayani was a clerk. To tell the jury during sentencing that he was ineligible for parole. Accepting the Virginia Supreme Court's state law determination that Ramdass was not. We conclude that Simmons was not applicable. I The facts of Kayani's murder are related by the Virginia Supreme Court as follows: 2 During the night of September 1 and early morning of September 2. Were returning home in a car with three other men. A 7 Eleven clerk who was behind the cash register. Who were unarmed. Ramdass was </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F24E8E3637C9B7888256E5A00707D80/$file/9999028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner's lawyers have filed a writ of 16616 mandamus to compel a stay of proceedings in the district court. The writ is granted. We have recalled the mandate and issue this opinion on the merits. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the guilt phase issues that are ripe for our review. We leave undecided those guilt phase issues that are not yet ripe. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND* Petitioner was indicted for the 1985 murder of Rickey Van Zandt.1 He was tried in front of a jury. The state's theory of the case was that Petitioner killed Van Zandt as part of a plot to steal his van. Were hitchhiking from Sacramento to Lake Tahoe. While Van Zandt was sleeping in the van. Petitioner beat him with a rock until he was unconscious. Upon discovering that Van Zandt still was alive. Among the items that the police seized after the arrest were Petitioner's jeans. Which were splattered with blood above the knees. Shortly after he was arrested. He was advised of his constitutional rights and agreed to make a statement. </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/987.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. The facts are set forth in detail in the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina on direct appeal. Warden of Central Prison where Ward is incarcerated. We will refer to French as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215674.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I was wrestling trying to get free. I was mad but he thought it was all a big joke. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/387DDE5D3E685CD588256B1A0018945A/$file/9999028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner's lawyers have filed a writ of 16616 mandamus to compel a stay of proceedings in the district court. The writ is granted. We have recalled the mandate and issue this opinion on the merits. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the guilt phase issues that are ripe for our review. We leave undecided those guilt phase issues that are not yet ripe. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND* Petitioner was indicted for the 1985 murder of Rickey Van Zandt.1 He was tried in front of a jury. The state's theory of the case was that Petitioner killed Van Zandt as part of a plot to steal his van. Were hitchhiking from Sacramento to Lake Tahoe. While Van Zandt was sleeping in the van. Petitioner beat him with a rock until he was unconscious. Upon discovering that Van Zandt still was alive. Among the items that the police seized after the arrest were Petitioner's jeans. Which were splattered with blood above the knees. Shortly after he was arrested. He was advised of his constitutional rights and agreed to make a statement. </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/0012.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The remaining allegations in Rose's habeas petition were dismissed. No certificate of appealability is necessary with respect to the portion of the district court's judgment from which the State appeals. A. After receiving a report that Patricia Stewart was missing and finding small drops of blood in and around her apartment. The thermos and the trunk of the Ford contained bloodstains that were consistent with Stewart's blood type and inconsistent with Rose's. Rose told Frye that he did not want to discuss Stewart's disappearance </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/2003/08/01-6258.htm">01-6258 -- SPEARS V. MULLIN -- 08/12/2003<BR></A><BR> Were cruising around Pauls Valley. They were joined at various times by Powell. Spears began driving the truck because Thompson was intoxicated. Daniels that he was going to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of capital murder in Virginia and sentenced to death. Buchanan was charged with capital murder for the killing of </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/2002/11/00-6333.htm">00-6333 -- LE V. MULLIN -- 11/26/2002<BR></A><BR> Arguing that (1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of the prosecutor's improper remarks. (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. (3) he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing by the district court in relation to these first two issues. 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="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C16C62E52B94CC4C88256C210059984A/$file/9999030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Including whether the prosecution's failure to reveal evidence that could have been used to impeach a witness had a material effect on the jury's verdict. Who was staying with her. Was the only person in it. He was wearing a dark blue three piece suit and a light blue. Because Patel was occupied. Hayes and Patel were coming out of Patel's bathroom area. Was awakened by knocking at her door. There were wet spots on the suit coat. His hands were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/943687P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joubert's death sentences were based on an unconstitutionally vague statutory aggravating factor and granted the writ. Danny's gag worked loose and he asked Joubert if he was going to die. He was found with a figure resembling a plant carved into his torso. Giving details unknown to the public which were corroborated by the crime scenes. Which were later corroborated. Joubert was charged with two counts of first degree murder. Joubert was sentenced to death on both counts. The sentencing panel found two statutory aggravating factors in regard to the murder of Danny Eberle: 1) that he was killed in order to conceal the perpetrator's identity (Nebraska statutory aggravator 29 2523(1)(b)). 2) that the murder was both </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/97-8983.man.html">WILLIAMS V. HEAD (8/26/1999, NO. 97-8983)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. <EM>See Williams v. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one.</P> <P> In our previous opinion we affirmed the denial of habeas relief to Williams as to all but one of the claims relating to his conviction and sentence. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed <EM>if</EM> the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. <EM>See Williams v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/001492P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Becomes unconstitutional once an execution date is set because at that time it ceases to be in the prisoner's medical interest. The facts giving rise to Singleton's conviction were set forth in the Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion on direct appeal: The victim. Was murdered in York's Grocery Store at Hamburg on June 1. The evidence of guilt in this case is overwhelming. Charles Singleton is killing me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/97-8983.man.html">WILLIAMS V. HEAD (8/26/1999, NO. 97-8983)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. <EM>See Williams v. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one.</P> <P> In our previous opinion we affirmed the denial of habeas relief to Williams as to all but one of the claims relating to his conviction and sentence. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed <EM>if</EM> the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. <EM>See Williams v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978983.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed if the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. Williams' present counsel have brought forward a substantial amount of new evidence which they say should have been considered by the district court in deciding whether trial counsel Collins was ineffective at the sentence stage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978983.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § FILED U.S. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed if the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. Williams' present counsel have brought forward a substantial amount of new evidence which they say should have been considered by the district court in deciding whether trial counsel Collins was ineffective at the sentence stage. </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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9715.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: Dennis Wayne Eaton was sentenced to death for the murder of Virginia State Trooper Jerry L. We will not recount here the disturbing details of his crimes. This factual background is set forth both in the district court's opinion and in the opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court denying his direct appeal. We focus instead on the process by which Eaton was convicted and sentenced to death. Eaton was indicted by a grand jury in Rockbridge County. McDonald was with Eaton when Hines was killed. </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/B8CB9CF09D126AA888256A9C005AC892/$file/0099000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: William Charles Payton was convicted in 1982 of the rape and murder of Pamela Montgomery. He was sentenced to death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/961613P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was convicted of murder in Missouri and sentenced to death. Kelvin Malone was convicted of the 1981 murder of William Parr. He was waiting in the cab line at the Greyhound Bus Terminal in St. Parr was first in line. The bank was less than three blocks from the bus terminal. Such deliveries were top priority. Parr had been shot and was lying face down with blood coming from his nose and right ear. He was taken to Christian Northeast Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. There was evidence that Kelvin Malone had arrived in St. Bego did not see who was there. The men drove off instead and were apprehended after a high speed chase. Three bullets test fired from one of these guns were later compared to a .25 caliber slug taken from Parr's brain. Louis police were inconclusive. Louis and which were found in the car at his arrest. Malone had been convicted and sentenced to death in California for two murders that took place in that state just a few days after Parr was killed in Missouri.3 Counsel was appointed in the Parr case on November 28. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F379EA92BD116E6D88256E5A00707C1A/$file/0099000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: William Charles Payton was convicted in 1982 of the rape and murder of Pamela Montgomery. He was sentenced to death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/971280P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sullens was married to Cox's grandfather. He later told police that he had killed Sullens because he suspected that she was trying to kill his grandfather. He found that Margaret and William Brown were there. Cox was arrested and confessed in detail. He was tried and sentenced to death in a bifurcated proceeding. Alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The case was later transferred to the Honorable William R. Because issues of credibility were involved. DISCUSSION This matter is before us on an application for a certificate of appealability pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415597.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. ( </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-6309.htm">98-6309 -- BOYD V. WARD -- 06/08/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED3D8E64B695AF1D88256AF7007FBE7A/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200112553.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Atrocious and cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6159.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Factual background The relevant underlying facts of this case were outlined in detail by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) in addressing Welch's direct appeal: On February 25. She was nude and had leather straps forming a ligature around her neck that also went down her back binding her hands. The Coopers' seven month old child was unharmed and in his crib in his room. The physical and circumstantial evidence at trial supported the State's theory that [Welch] secured entry into the Coopers' home by posing as a Norman Cablevision employee [Welch was fired from his employment with Norman Cablevision prior to the day of the murder. Retained possession of his employee uniform] as there were no signs of forced entry and the Coopers' dogs were found secured in the garage. Cooper kept them when repairpersons were working who needed access to the backyard. The medical examiner testified Cooper's anal swab was positive for sperm and that she had perianal peri postmortem tears which indicated the tears were sustained immediately after or during death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1244p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to interpret and apply the United States Supreme Court's admonition in McFarland v. We hold that the district court's decision to deny him a stay of execution was not consistent with a sound exercise of discretion. Was found stabbed to death in a restroom in the restaurant where she worked. Steven Duffey was charged with the killing. Duffey was formally sentenced. The motion was denied on November 18. A motion for reconsideration was denied on November 22. Believing that the trial court's denials were predicated on its view that it lacked jurisdiction to stay Duffey's execution in the absence of a petition filed under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act ( </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/043160P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted as party appellee. 1 district court2 denied habeas relief. Several drug dealers were arrested in Cainsville. A drug dealer who was not arrested. Middleton told another individual there were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/99-10895.ma2.html">FORD V. HALEY (11/8/1999, NO. 99-10895)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Petitioner Pernell Ford ( </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/9459D48B6EAC2C0888256B8200079405/$file/0199000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/99-10895.ma2.html">FORD V. HALEY (11/8/1999, NO. 99-10895)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Petitioner Pernell Ford ( </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/5BAF0DF04C873FDE88256E5A00707D36/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0227p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was denied. Bell Page 2 We have now heard Cone's appeal three times because the United States Supreme Court has twice reversed our decisions granting relief. We will affirm the district court's original judgment denying Cone's petition. The details of Cone's brutal crimes are not material to the issues we address in this appeal. They are fully set forth in Cone v. The details of this case's procedural history are material to the issues before us on this appeal and we recount them now. The jury found four aggravating factors: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/971637P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was originally argued before Judge Richard S. The submission was vacated and the case was restored to the calendar for reargument pursuant to Eighth Cir. Johns was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the 1982 murder of a gas station attendant. Johns called Klund and told her that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-40985.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Federal habeas relief was denied Texas state prisoner Rickey Lynn Lewis concerning a capital murder conviction for which the death sentence was imposed. The district court certified one of whether Lewis was numerous requested issues for appeal (COA): excused. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. (4) & (5) counsel was ineffective for failing both to make a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection objection (where psychological testimony supporting future dangerousness was based. Each COA request is DENIED. The denial of habeas relief is AFFIRMED. I. The following facts are based on those stated in Lewis v. Was struck in the head at least twice. Was lifted by two individuals. Hilton was led outside and later directed into the living room. Where she was sexually assaulted by the man who found her in the bathroom. She heard sounds indicating the house was being ransacked. legs. Somebody will find you in the morning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8093B735D893BD54882572FF0081DD54/$file/0699000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schriro is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: Appellant George Lopez ( </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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9820.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He approached the house of Conway Forrest Richter ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8132BD780664EE188256AD40078DAA2/$file/9999024.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted relief on Ainsworth's claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence at the penalty phase. Because we conclude that Ainsworth's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. We do not consider the additional issue raised in the State's appeal or those issues raised in Ainsworth's cross appeal as all four issues relate to the penalty phase trial and there is no indication those issues would arise again in a new penalty phase trial. Seng </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E6F58BB0C6C7B1788256E5A00707CF0/$file/9999024.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted relief on Ainsworth's claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence at the penalty phase. Because we conclude that Ainsworth's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. We do not consider the additional issue raised in the State's appeal or those issues raised in Ainsworth's cross appeal as all four issues relate to the penalty phase trial and there is no indication those issues would arise again in a new penalty phase trial. Seng </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/021845P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to be executed. His motion for state post conviction relief filed pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 was overruled. Were affirmed in a consolidated appeal taken to the Missouri Supreme Court. Made by the prosecutor in his closing statement when he was speaking of conversations Brown had with his wife. Is the story that he told Kathy Moore strange and other worldly? Is the story that he told the police strange and other worldly? This is a strange. You have heard uncontested testimony from Ms. The point I'm trying to make is not that his statement about Janet Perkins is necessarily ­ that his statement about the murder of Janet Perkins is evidence of his guilt in this case. It is not. It is a strange. That both of the strange stories he told to his wife and to the police on videotape are consistent with a very. As Brown suggests it should have. His Rule 29.15 counsel did not properly present a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's remark. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0183p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was at her home and that Deborah's boyfriend. Was expected to arrive later in the evening. That was the last chance Mrs. O'Nan would have to speak to her daughter alive. O'Nan testified that Angel was wearing a hot pink sweater. O'Nan searched her home to determine if any of Angel's belongings were missing. Although Angel's pink pants were found. Was told by the appellant that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211488.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that Carr is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence. I. BACKGROUND Carr was convicted of the 1992 murder of Keith Young following a jury trial in Monroe County. Georgia and was sentenced to death in 1994.1 His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. The following facts were set forth by the Georgia Supreme Court: Carr was also charged with and convicted of theft of Young's vehicle. He was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment on the motor vehicle charge. The jury was authorized to find that Carr. Carr and Burgeson fled to Tennessee in the victim's car and were arrested following a high speed chase. They were placed in the back of a police car in which police had activated a hidden tape recorder. Was introduced into evidence at Carr's trial. The jury was also authorized to find from the evidence that the knife used to stab the victim was discovered in Burgeson's purse. The evidence adduced was sufficient to enable a rational juror to find Carr guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE96D59DCC5FF11B88256B7E006D27BB/$file/9899025.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was convicted in 1982 of first degree murder with special circumstances. V were taking a brief walk during their midmorning break from their jobs in Placerville. As they were walking under an overpass. P was gagged and her hands tied and Ms. V was raped. V to Chili Bar where the sheriff and medical help were summoned. P and determined that she was dead. The cause of death was one of three bullet wounds and a fracture through the base of her skull. V testified that one or two days after the shooting she told a police detective that her assailant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9D6DB197E87E1F188256F780000E7E9/$file/0335081.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-13198.man.html">JOHNSON V. ALABAMA (7/10/2001, NO. 99-13198)<BR></A><BR> Johnson was indicted and convicted of capital murder in the 1984 shooting death of Kenneth Cantrell in Morgan County. That judgment was later upheld on direct appeal and again on collateral attack by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/021845P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to death. His consolidated direct appeal and post conviction challenges in the Missouri Supreme Court were unavailing. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. grounds for relief was denied. The claim in question concerns a letter that Brown's defense counsel sought to have read into evidence during the penalty phase of Brown's trial for the Ford murder. Counsel represented to the trial court that the letter was from Darius Q. Was deployed in Saudi Arabia in Operation Desert Shield at the time of Brown's sentencing. He was unable to be present in the courtroom to testify. Turner noted the love and understanding between him and his brother and recounted how Brown had protected Turner from bigger boys when Turner was a child. A decision by a state court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/039A92FE7F60F910882571C6007C031D/$file/0399001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. is substituted for his predecessor Jeanne Woodford. Because Hovey admitted that he had taken the young victim against her will and committed the acts that resulted in her death. Finding a number of errors but determining that none is alone or cumulatively sufficient to merit reversal of Hovey's conviction. Eight year old Tina Salazar was abducted while she was walking home from school in Hayward. Later that afternoon she was found by the side of a road. Hovey was arrested in connection with the kidnapping of another young girl. Hovey was arrested for the Salazar kidnapping and murder. Hovey was charged with kidnapping and with first degree murder with two </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0144p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wayne Lee Bates was sentenced to death by a jury in the Criminal Court for Coffee County. Which was denied in the District Court. As the record does not support Bates's contention that his plea was entered unknowingly or involuntarily. The jury was prevented from giving proper consideration to mitigating circumstances that may have led the jury to reject the death penalty. Because Bates is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-13198.man.html">JOHNSON V. ALABAMA (7/10/2001, NO. 99-13198)<BR></A><BR> Johnson was indicted and convicted of capital murder in the 1984 shooting death of Kenneth Cantrell in Morgan County. That judgment was later upheld on direct appeal and again on collateral attack by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20456.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The Handi Mart was busy with employees of the Swartz Electric Company who had just been paid. Cashed their paychecks at the store and were enjoying a few beers and the company of coworkers outside the premises of the store. Among those gathered was Robert Tate. Noted that it was busy and proceeded with their plan. [Fuentes] approached the proprietor and a customer who were standing near the counter. Was a high school classmate of [Fuentes]. James Draffin was walking into the store when he noticed that it was being robbed. The bullets recovered from Tate's body were consistent with those used in a 9 millimeter weapon. Which are most commonly semiautomatic. Flores' description of [Fuentes] was consistent with the description given by the proprietor as the man who robbed him in the store. Templeton was the only co conspirator to testify. He testified that he was not watching when he heard the shots fired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/72A5880FC74D60D288256E89007E8EC3/$file/0250663.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that the district court should have dismissed his indictment because: (1) the charge given by the district court to the grand jury denied his Fifth Amendment1 right to the unfettered judgment of the grand jurors by instructing them not to consider The Fifth Amendment reads in relevant part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986882.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was armed with a rifle. While Peoples was armed with a deadly weapon. Recommended that Peoples be sentenced to death for each murder by an 11 to 1 vote. 2 This opinion is organized as follows. He joined Peoples and the Franklins who were sitting around a table. 3 Peoples knew about the Corvette because he had been a member of a work crew that built a fence around the Franklins's backyard and from time to time had performed odd jobs in and around the Franklin residence. 3 Peoples soon left the table to look for the Franklins' ten year old son. He brought him to the table where Gooden and the boy's parents were sitting. Gooden replaced her gag and 4 Paul Franklin was seriously disabled as a result of shrapnel injuries suffered in Vietnam. Gooden remained with the Corvette and pick up truck while all of this was taking place. Was walking toward the Talladega Downs when Peoples arrived at the apartment complex. He told her that it was an early birthday present for his wife. As they were talking. She noticed what he was wearing a light colored shirt and blue jeans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1114p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the district court's denial of Riley's motion to amend his petition was inconsistent with the exercise of sound discretion. We will reverse the district court's order denying Riley leave to amend his petition. Killing him.[fn3] The State's case was largely based on Baxter's and Williams's testimony.[fn4] After the jury found Riley guilty. It considered and rejected Riley's contentions that: (1) the jury instructions were inadequate at the penalty stage. (3) the voir dire was inadequate to identify jurors who would automatically impose the death penalty. (4) trial counsel was ineffective at the penalty stage. 1992 would not be granted absent extreme circumstances.[fn7] In response Allingham told the court that the January 31 date was suggested </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: James Callahan was convicted and sentenced to death in Alabama state court for the intentional murder of Rebecca Suzanne Howell. Which was granted in part and denied in part. (3) his statements should not have been admitted because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of the right to counsel. Callahan did not argue to this Court that his statements should not have been admitted because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of the right to counsel. There have been two trials. It is necessary for us to review the entire history of the case. At the club where he was performing with his band in Jacksonville. Was a student at Jacksonville State University. Howell was supposed to return to the club. Howell was found dead of asphyxiation in the Tallasseehatchee Creek in Calhoun County. Alabama her hands were taped together. Her belt was on upside down. She was not wearing pantyhose. Jimmy Dunagan was in his car outside of a washerteria six or seven blocks from the Norge Washerteria. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-6052.opn.html">CADE V. HALEY (8/17/2000, NO. 99-6052)<BR></A><BR> Background</P> <P> Cade was originally convicted and sentenced to death in 1978. His conviction was vacated by the United States Supreme Court because at the time the Alabama death sentencing procedure did not comply with the Eighth Amendment. <EM>See Cade v. Cade was again tried. Ct. 184 (1988).</P> <P> Cade's conviction is based on events that took place in 1977. Alabama three times.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0283p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was sentenced to death by an Ohio jury for the 1987 aggravated murder of Mari Anne Pope. Pope was babysitting two neighborhood children. He did not have the requisite intent for aggravated murder. Are presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence: In the early morning hours of August 13. The victim Mari Anne Pope was awakened in her home by appellant. Were also awakened. The children awoke to the voice of Mari Anne inquiring as to who this person was that had entered her home. The man asked if there were others in the house. To which she replied that there were two children upstairs. Who was lying upon her stomach. The children were admitted into a neighbor's home and police were called. Her nightgown was pulled up around her neck. She was drenched in blood with large holes in her body. The other officer responded that there was no one on the dining room floor and both officers began to search. Bagley Page 3 first officer to react testified that appellant was very quick and agile. The officer was unable to subdue appellant until two other officers entered the fray. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-6052.opn.html">CADE V. HALEY (8/17/2000, NO. 99-6052)<BR></A><BR> Background</P> <P> Cade was originally convicted and sentenced to death in 1978. His conviction was vacated by the United States Supreme Court because at the time the Alabama death sentencing procedure did not comply with the Eighth Amendment. <EM>See Cade v. Cade was again tried. Ct. 184 (1988).</P> <P> Cade's conviction is based on events that took place in 1977. Alabama three times.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0218.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The facts of this case are as follows: At the time of sentencing. One of the capital murder counts was dismissed by the state trial court. 2 Walton named Ronald Angelone. We will refer to respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E2C84650DADD0B888256E5A00707A47/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BADD5034DABAACE882569EE0083123F/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Dennis Mitchell Orbe was convicted by a Virginia jury of capital murder. He was sentenced to death for the murder. The entire incident was captured on videotape by the store's security camera. The following facts are taken from the opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court on Orbe's direct appeal of his convictions and sentence: Near 3:38 a.m. on January 24. Walked up to the check out counter where Richard Sterling Burnett was working as a clerk. As Burnett was clutching his chest and struggling to remain in a standing position. Although Orbe was quickly identified as the gunman from the still images obtained from the videotape. He was not apprehended until January 31. Orbe was ultimately tried and convicted in York County of the capital murder of Burnett. A capital sentencing proceeding was then held. Orbe </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/033.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 03 3 (CA 02 2030 0 10BD) ORDER Before the court is a motion by appellee Wilson for leave to file a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc out of time. 2003 is hereby amended. We held that Wilson was precluded from raising in federal court either of his claims related to a report prepared by the Quality Care Review Board (QCRB). Because he was either procedurally barred from raising. Wilson argues that this holding was in error because the South Carolina Supreme Court's order. Authorized him to pursue both claims in post conviction relief.1 The order of the South Carolina Supreme Court stated simply that Wilson's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2CE0AED3FB4FBAE388256E5A00707A55/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D71334F8521B38D882569F1005FA660/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/018.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: After his third death sentence for the murder of Irvin and Rose Bronstein was affirmed by the Maryland courts. Irvin and Rose Bronstein were found dead in their Baltimore home. Their residence had been ransacked and some of their property was missing. Petitioner John Booth El and William </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0388p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is brought by death sentenced Ohio prisoner. (IV) there was a Clemons violation where the trial court upheld Defendant's death sentence after re weighing the aggravating and mitigating FRANK G. (V) that there was prosecutorial misconduct during various stages of the culpability and mitigation phases of the trial. Was granted psychiatric evaluations by four other psychiatrists: Dr. Wherein it was determined. That Defendant was competent to stand trial. Which was accepted by the trial court. Defendant was sentenced to death on August 10. Defendant was also sentenced to terms of seven to twenty five years imprisonment on each attempted murder and aggravated robbery conviction. The court found that Defendant was improperly convicted of two counts of aggravated murder for the death of Timothy Sheehan. The petition was denied. Which was granted. Rickerson was discovered by a fellow student on the floor of a restroom on the Cleveland State University campus. Four spent bullet casings were recovered from the scene. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="512"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0405p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clark alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of (1) his trial counsel's failure to obtain a neuropsychologist and pharmacologist to testify at Clark's suppression hearing and trial about Clark's inability to waive his rights against self incrimination voluntarily and knowingly. Are excerpted from State v. Was shot and killed during an armed robbery of the establishment. The victim was working alone and appellant demanded money. The victim told appellant that there was no money. Handed appellant approximately $60 from the cash drawer and told him that was all of the money on the premises. The victim responded that there was no more money. Appellant was arrested after allegedly committing an assault and robbery at the Ohio Citizens Bank. Was arraigned in the Toledo Municipal Court for the assault and robbery at the bank. The public defender was aware that appellant was a suspect in the Manning murder. Appellant was taken to St. Appellant was released from the hospital and taken to the Toledo Police Detective Bureau where he was questioned by Detective James Lagger and Detective Sergeant Przeslawski. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-14261.man.html">BROWN V. JONES (6/29/2001, NO. 99-14261)<BR></A><BR> Brown and Bynum were both familiar with McGraw. Brown recalled Bankhead saying that they would have to kill McGraw. Where they divided the stolen property and the money from McGraw's wallet and burned their clothes which were covered in blood. The next afternoon McGraw's body was discovered by a neighborhood child.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0320p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tiffany Skiba was stabbed to death on November 8. That recommendation was adopted by the trial judge. GRANT Frazier a conditional writ of habeas corpus that will result in the vacation of his death sentence unless the state of Ohio No. 01 3122 Frazier v. Bednarski discovered that Skiba was pregnant. Both women believed that Skiba's pregnancy was the result of sexual abuse by Frazier. Frazier was indicted in state court on two counts of rape and two counts involving other sex crimes. Dates for the blood test and the trial were then set by the state criminal court. Skiba was terrified of Frazier. She was visibly disturbed any time that she was in his presence. Skiba confided in one friend her fear that Frazier was going to kill her. His dog was barking and looking excitedly at the back door. Robert Skiba was met with the ghastly sight of his granddaughter's corpse lying in bed. The knife was part of a set belonging to her grandparents. There was blood on the knife. Although it was normally kept closed. The door leading from the basement into the rest of the house was open. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/99-14261.man.html">BROWN V. JONES (6/29/2001, NO. 99-14261)<BR></A><BR> Brown and Bynum were both familiar with McGraw. Brown recalled Bankhead saying that they would have to kill McGraw. Where they divided the stolen property and the money from McGraw's wallet and burned their clothes which were covered in blood. The next afternoon McGraw's body was discovered by a neighborhood child.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0232p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There is no question about Dickerson's guilt. He was at the borderline of retardation that would have given the three judge panel strong reasons for reducing the penalty from death to life imprisonment. This theory is flatly contradicted by the holdings of a series of Supreme Court cases and Sixth Circuit cases. We will first set forth the standard of review under AEDPA. We will next discuss this ineffective assistance of counsel claim as the basis for our granting of habeas relief requiring a new trial at the sentencing phase of the case. We will then focus on other claims that do not justify the grant of relief. The statute limits the grant of federal habeas relief to cases in which a petitioner's state court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/93-2616.man.html">HILL V. MOORE (5/14/1999, NO. 93-2616)<BR></A><BR> Jackson exited the savings and loan through the front door and was immediately apprehended. Vacated his death sentence and remanded the case for a new sentencing proceeding because the trial judge failed to dismiss a juror who was predisposed to recommend a death sentence. <EM>See Hill v. A new judge empaneled a jury and the sentencing phase of the case was relitigated. The court did so although the evidence did not support one of the aggravating circumstances that the murder was cold. The trial judge's consideration of the erroneous factor was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9726.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. It was dismissed by the Virginia Supreme Court on March 18. Stewart was not permitted to take Jonathan from the house. Stewart was at home. One shot was fired at a range of no more than an inch or two. As Stewart was driving through Bedford County. After receiving information from the National Criminal Information Center that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19973355.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS The facts are recited verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on direct review of Sims's conviction and sentence. Terry Melvin Sims was convicted for the first degree murder of George Pfeil. An off duty deputy sheriff who entered a pharmacy while it was being robbed by Sims and three other men. Were the state's chief witnesses. Pfeil was shot twice and Sims was wounded in the hip. This account of the robbery and the shooting was confirmed by pharmacist Robert Duncan. He was stopped by Sims who took 2 his wallet. Guggenheim said he then saw Sims shoot a man who was entering through the front door. The main theory of defense was mistaken identity. B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Sims's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Sims raised numerous issues on direct appeal: (1) whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness when the trial court curtailed defense counsel's cross examination of Baldree. (6) whether Sims was improperly prevented from further questioning a juror in a post trial hearing about whether the jurors had considered Sims's failure to testify in reaching their verdict. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/93-2616.man.html">HILL V. MOORE (5/14/1999, NO. 93-2616)<BR></A><BR> Jackson exited the savings and loan through the front door and was immediately apprehended. Vacated his death sentence and remanded the case for a new sentencing proceeding because the trial judge failed to dismiss a juror who was predisposed to recommend a death sentence. <EM>See Hill v. A new judge empaneled a jury and the sentencing phase of the case was relitigated. The court did so although the evidence did not support one of the aggravating circumstances that the murder was cold. The trial judge's consideration of the erroneous factor was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/97-3355.man.html">SIMS V. SINGLETARY (9/22/1998, NO. 97-3355)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> A. <EM>FACTS </EM></P> <P> The facts are recited verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on direct review of Sims's conviction and sentence.</P> <P> Terry Melvin Sims was convicted for the first degree murder of George Pfeil. An off duty deputy sheriff who entered a pharmacy while it was being robbed by Sims and three other men. Were the state's chief witnesses. Pfeil was shot twice and Sims was wounded in the hip. The four men then departed the area.</P> <P> This account of the robbery and the shooting was confirmed by pharmacist Robert Duncan. He was stopped by Sims who took his wallet. Guggenheim said he then saw Sims shoot a man who was entering through the front door.</P> <P> The main theory of defense was mistaken identity. 923 24 (Fla.1983).</P> <P> B. <EM>PROCEDURAL HISTORY</EM></P> <P> Sims's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. <EM>Sims v. Sims raised numerous issues on direct appeal: (1) whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness when the trial court curtailed defense counsel's cross examination of Baldree. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/97-3355.man.html">SIMS V. SINGLETARY (9/22/1998, NO. 97-3355)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> A. <EM>FACTS </EM></P> <P> The facts are recited verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on direct review of Sims's conviction and sentence.</P> <P> Terry Melvin Sims was convicted for the first degree murder of George Pfeil. An off duty deputy sheriff who entered a pharmacy while it was being robbed by Sims and three other men. Were the state's chief witnesses. Pfeil was shot twice and Sims was wounded in the hip. The four men then departed the area.</P> <P> This account of the robbery and the shooting was confirmed by pharmacist Robert Duncan. He was stopped by Sims who took his wallet. Guggenheim said he then saw Sims shoot a man who was entering through the front door.</P> <P> The main theory of defense was mistaken identity. 923 24 (Fla.1983).</P> <P> B. <EM>PROCEDURAL HISTORY</EM></P> <P> Sims's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. <EM>Sims v. Sims raised numerous issues on direct appeal: (1) whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness when the trial court curtailed defense counsel's cross examination of Baldree. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19973355.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS The facts are recited verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on direct review of Sims's conviction and sentence. Terry Melvin Sims was convicted for the first degree murder of George Pfeil. An off duty deputy sheriff who entered a pharmacy while it was being robbed by Sims and three other men. Were the state's chief witnesses. Pfeil was shot twice and Sims was wounded in the hip. This account of the robbery and the shooting was confirmed by pharmacist Robert Duncan. He was stopped by Sims who took his wallet. Guggenheim said he then saw Sims shoot a man who was entering through the front door. The main theory of defense was mistaken identity. B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Sims's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Sims raised numerous issues on direct appeal: (1) whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness when the trial court curtailed defense counsel's cross examination of Baldree. (6) whether Sims was improperly prevented from further questioning a juror in a post trial hearing about whether the jurors had considered Sims's failure to testify in reaching their verdict. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0085p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/021757P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Keith Dwayne Nelson was sentenced to death. They left the A 1 parking lot in a white Ford F 150 pickup truck that Nelson was driving. Nelson also told Robinson that he wanted to do this because he was going back to prison for other charges and that he wanted to go back for something big. He decided not to contact the police because he thought that Nelson must have been joking. Just three days later Michanne Mattson was attacked outside of her apartment building. Mattson was driving home from a friend's house in the early morning when she passed a white pickup truck parked alongside the road. Exclaiming that she had better shut up and that he was going to kill her. That now was the time to do it. Ten year old Pamela Butler was rollerblading in the street near her residence in the same area. The witness was able to write down the license plate number of the truck­Missouri plate number 177 CE2. The truck was gone. The truck was found abandoned the next day in Kansas City. A police dog that had been provided with some of Pamela's clothing was dispatched to Nelson's mother's house and alerted to an afghan found inside the residence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Corrected opinion filed 2/14/03 is vacated. Was tried and convicted of first degree murder for killing Raymond E. Seven African Americans were seated on the jury. One of whom was later removed for cause during the trial. Allen's fate was finally decided by a jury of six blacks and six whites. 2 At sentencing. The jury was instructed. That they should </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/999006.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a death penalty appeal which presents. These claims are: (1) that trial delays denied Gattis the right to a speedy trial. (2) that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by an improper peremptory challenge. (3) that trial counsel were ineffective. (4) that the sentencing court violated Gattis' constitutional rights by sentencing him under Delaware's revised death penalty even though the crime of which he was convicted occurred prior to the statute's enactment. Our review is confined to those five claims. We will. Will affirm. The question of particular significance is the manner of dealing with an attack on a peremptory challenge pursuant to Batson v. Also to factors that were properly considered. We hold that the state courts' application of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-41084.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is before us seeking a certificate of appealability (COA) to contest the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his federal habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * I FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Wilson was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Jerry Williams during the course of a kidnaping. Wilson was retried and was again convicted and sentenced to death. 139 (Tex. discrete facts of Wilson's crime as reflected by the evidence were summarized by the state appellate court on direct appeal. Wilson's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Wilson filed the instant § 2254 petition in which he argued that (1) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that if he were sentenced to life in prison. (2) the statutory definition of kidnaping contained in the Texas capital murder statute is unconstitutional and overly broad. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-9027.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BATTLE (4/28/1999, NO. 97-9027)<BR></A><BR> He was convicted of first degree felony murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a). He was sentenced to life in prison.</P> <P> Battle was moved around some and eventually transferred to the United States Penitentiary Atlanta ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-9027.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BATTLE (4/28/1999, NO. 97-9027)<BR></A><BR> He was convicted of first degree felony murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a). He was sentenced to life in prison.</P> <P> Battle was moved around some and eventually transferred to the United States Penitentiary Atlanta ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310673.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Waldon was a sworn deputy sheriff of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914261.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown and Bynum were both familiar with McGraw. Brown recalled Bankhead saying that they would have to kill McGraw. Where they divided the stolen property and the money from McGraw's wallet and burned their clothes which were covered in blood. The next afternoon McGraw's body was discovered by a neighborhood child. Told him that Bynum's statement reflected that Bankhead stabbed McGraw and was the ringleader. Brown was indicted for the capital offense of the murder of Jack McGraw during a robbery in violation of § 13A 5 40(a)(2). Brown's appointed counsel was Russell T. The deepest of which were two inches deep. 1 post conviction relief under Temporary Rule 20 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure.2 Brown twice amended his Rule 20 petition. An evidentiary hearing was held on Brown's petition. Holding that most of Brown's federal constitutional claims were procedurally barred and that his remaining claims failed on the merits. Brown argues that his trial counsel was ineffective at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because he failed to investigate and present evidence of Brown's drug and alcohol abuse and its effects upon his mental state at the time of the crime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19979027.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was convicted of first degree felony murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a). He was sentenced to life in prison. Battle was moved around some and eventually transferred to the United States Penitentiary Atlanta ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19979027.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was convicted of first degree felony murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a). He was sentenced to life in prison. Battle was moved around some and eventually transferred to the United States Penitentiary Atlanta ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-4160.htm">98-4160 -- TILLMAN V. COOK -- 06/15/2000<BR></A><BR> Claiming his right to Due Process was violated. (3) the jury convicted him on the basis of elements for which there was insufficient evidence. (4) his indictment was insufficient. (5) his sentence of death was arbitrary. Because the distinction between first degree and second degree murder was entirely unclear to a jury. (6) his sentence of death was arbitrary and unconstitutional. Because three of five Justices of the Utah Supreme Court have. Tillman was convicted by a jury of first degree murder. Which was denied. <u>See</u> <u>Tillman v. Tillman's right to appeal is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Because his appeal was filed after its effective date. While the Court's clarification in <u>Slack</u> may have some effect on non constitutional claims. The standard remains the same for constitutional claims. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> <p> Because the showing for a CPC is the same as that required for a COA. 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/042192P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Don William Davis was convicted of capital murder in Arkansas and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. His petition for postconviction relief in state court was denied. Jane Daniel was found dead in her home from a shot to the back of her head. Several items of jewelry and other property were missing from the home. Davis was charged in an information with capital murder. Davis was declared indigent by the state trial court and pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Arkansas law requires a trial court to suspend proceedings and order an examination when a defendant's mental disease or defect becomes or is likely to become an issue. To examine Davis and to submit a report as to whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that Davis was insane then or at the time of the offense. Jenkins concluded that while there was no evidence that Davis was incompetent or psychotic. There was evidence of residual attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/008.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Circuit Judge: Sherman Skipper was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of Bladen County. Seeking relief based upon the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on second degree murder and the district court's refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing to determine whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to present evidence of Skipper's mental retardation and diminished capacity at the guilt phase of trial.1 Skipper also argues that his death sentence violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because he is mentally retarded. We refer to Respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914261.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown and Bynum were both familiar with McGraw. Brown recalled Bankhead saying that they would have to kill McGraw. Where they divided the stolen property and the money from McGraw's wallet and burned their clothes which were covered in blood. The next afternoon McGraw's body was discovered by a neighborhood child. The deepest of which were two inches deep. 3 1 to the squad car. Told him that Bynum's statement reflected that Bankhead stabbed McGraw and was the ringleader. Brown was indicted for the capital offense of the murder of Jack McGraw during a robbery in violation of § 13A 5 40(a)(2). Brown's appointed counsel was Russell T. An evidentiary hearing was held on Brown's petition. Holding that most of Brown's federal constitutional claims were procedurally barred and that his remaining claims failed on the merits. Brown argues that his trial counsel was ineffective at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because he failed to investigate and present evidence of Brown's drug and alcohol abuse and its effects upon his mental state at the time of the crime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/011537P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joseph Whitfield (Whitfield) was sentenced to death after being convicted of first degree murder and armed criminal action. Was conducting errands with the assistance of Maria Evans (Evans). Chester was in the vehicle's driver's seat. Chester was driving and Evans would get out of the backseat to pick up dry cleaning and mail. Evans and Jody were all seated in the back. Who was in a vehicle parked nearby with Linda Scott (Scott). Who did not have any money. Additional shots were fired into the vehicle at Evans. Bolden was acquitted of murder charges in 1991. The .38 caliber Smith & Wesson used in the shootings was discovered by the police in Whitfield's apartment. Whitfield admitted the gun was his. Claimed he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115865.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Jerry Leon Haliburton was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death.1 After the completion of his direct appeal and state habeas court proceedings. 3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.2 For the reasons set forth 1 2 Haliburton also was convicted of burglary of the victim's residence. We find that the following eleven claims are without merit and do not warrant further discussion: 1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase. The following six claims that were raised and rejected in the district court on the merits or as having been procedurally barred have been abandoned on appeal as independent bases for habeas relief: 1) Florida's capital punishment law is unconstitutional. 3) the burden at the sentencing phase was impermissibly shifted to the defendant. We find that Haliburton is not entitled to relief from his conviction or his sentence. Donald Bohannon's home was burglarized. He was attacked with a knife as he slept. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1286p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question of the degree of jury unanimity required by the CCE statute is a difficult one. Other courts of appeals have disagreed with Echeverri's resolution. We must also decide whether the district court's failure to give the proper unanimity instruction was harmless error. These convictions do not themselves show unanimous agreement that the same three violations were sufficiently related to each other to constitute a continuing series. The evidence that the jury must have credited to find Edmonds guilty of the predicate violations unequivocally established that all charged violations were related. No rational jury could unanimously find Edmonds guilty of the predicate offenses without unanimously finding that the offenses were related to each other. I. Facts and Procedural History The facts of this case are fully set out in the earlier panel opinion. The organization was based in Los Angeles. ] that in some way he was causing or attempting to cause the distribution of cocaine and heroin as charged in Count 1 of the indictment or in other counts charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0384p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Hivner determined that she was too intoxicated to drive and took her keys away from her. It was at this point that Biros offered to take Engstrom for coffee in order to counteract the effects of the alcohol. Drove to Biros's home after learning that Engstrom was last seen with Biros. Biros claimed that he tapped Engstrom on the shoulder while they were in the car and she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-5021.htm">99-5021 -- PICKENS V. GIBSON -- 03/14/2000<BR></A><BR> 2000<em></em> <p> <em> </em> <p> The attached opinion is reissued following its withdrawal on March 8. The opinion is reissued without modification. A copy of the reissued opinion is attached. <p> <p> Sincerely. His post arrest statement was unconstitutionally obtained. The clerk was shot several times and eventually died from her wounds. Another Tulsa convenience store was robbed (the Union Circle K). The clerk there was also shot several times. Survived and was able to call police and describe the gunman. Petitioner will not be entitled to habeas relief unless he can establish that a habeas claim adjudicated by the state courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B1859A297BB34B488256D4F006E9488/$file/0199016.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Oscar Gates was sentenced to death for murdering Lonnie Stevenson in 1979. A crime for which Gates was later convicted. Gates's neighbors testified he was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/062907P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Middleton was convicted of the first degree murder of Alfred Pinegar and sentenced to death by a Missouri trial court. Was not arrested at that time. He told a friend that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/95-8682.ma2.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (3/29/1999, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR> Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/95-8682.man.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (9/21/1998, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR> Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/053318P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allen Nicklasson was found guilty by a jury in a Missouri state court of firstdegree murder and was sentenced to death. The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. Once the car was restarted. Drummond's body was found eight days later. Nicklasson and Skillicorn were later arrested while hitchhiking in California.2 Following the imposition of his sentence. A divided court held that the voir dire was constitutionally sufficient and found no error in the trial court's determination that the jury strikes were for legitimate reasons. Nicklasson's motion for post conviction relief was also denied. We may not grant a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any issue decided by the Missouri state courts unless the decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9814.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Supreme Court is remanded to the district court. The district court ordered that the writ be granted on the ground that Williams's trial counsel were ineffective because they failed to present certain evidence in mitigation of punishment during the sentencing phase of Williams's trial. The remaining allegations in Williams's habeas petition were dismissed. The Commonwealth contends that the writ was erroneously granted.1 We agree. Greene was substituted for Pruett as Respondent. Williams was transferred to the Sussex I State Prison. Was substituted for Greene as Respondent. We refer to Respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6432a.htm">97-6432A -- ROSS V. WARD -- 01/12/1999<BR></A><BR> 1229 (10th Cir. 1997). <p> <em> </em> <p> A copy of the corrected page 16 is attached. <p> Sincerely. Sergeant Mahan was pronounced dead. <u>See</u> Tr. at 643. <p> At approximately 2:26 a.m. Ross and two other men were riding for having a defective taillight and unsafe windshield. <u>See</u> Tr. at 698 702. All three men were frisked. Ballistics tests showed that the bullets removed from Sergeant Mahan's head were fired from the Bauer pistol taken from Mr. Ross was convicted of first degree murder and robbery with firearms in the Roger Mills County District Court. Ross was sentenced to death for the murder conviction and to ninety nine years imprisonment for the robbery conviction. <p> In support of the death penalty. (2) the murder was especially henious. (3) the murder was committed to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest or prosecution. (5) the victim of the murder was a peace officer. <u>See</u> Trial Ct. Ross' convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. <u>See</u> <u>Ross v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9718.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 107 of the AEDPA is also inapplicable to this appeal. Smith's state habeas petition was finally decided by the South Carolina Supreme Court prior to that date. 1342 (4th Cir.) (concluding that § 107 is inapplicable if petitioner's state habeas petition had been finally decided prior to that state satisfying the opt in requirements). Johnson was stabbed seventeen times on and about her face. Testified that most of the Johnsons' wounds and injuries were inflicted before death and during consciousness. Smith was arrested and charged with the two murders. Johnson's skull was fractured in two separate places. Johnson's skull was lacerated in several locations. 3 Smith's confession reads. As follows: Last Saturday I was drinking all day and walking. Smith was indicted in October of 1983 on two counts of murder. Testified at the hearing that Smith was capable of assisting his counsel and competent to stand trial. That Smith was competent to stand trial. Clark's conclusion that Smith was legally insane at the time of the murders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6397.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anderson asserted ten grounds in support of his claim that both his convictions and death sentences were constitutionally infirm. It is unnecessary to address the other contentions raised by Anderson on appeal. The order of the district court denying Anderson's 2254 habeas petition is hereby reversed and the matter is remanded to the district court to grant the writ consistent with this opinion. Are as follows: Between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. on September 28. (2) he was denied fundamental fairness when the trail court restricted voir dire regarding a potential juror's ability to consider all three possible punishment options should the jury eventually find Anderson guilty on the murder charges. (3) his right to a fundamentally fair trial was violated because his trial was held in a courtroom where a mural over the bench depicted the biblical phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6432.htm">97-6432 -- ROSS V. WARD -- 01/12/1999<BR></A><BR> Sergeant Mahan was pronounced dead. <u>See</u> Tr. at 643. <p> At approximately 2:26 a.m. Ross and two other men were riding for having a defective taillight and unsafe windshield. <u>See</u> Tr. at 698 702. All three men were frisked. Ballistics tests showed that the bullets removed from Sergeant Mahan's head were fired from the Bauer pistol taken from Mr. Ross was convicted of first degree murder and robbery with firearms in the Roger Mills County District Court. Ross was sentenced to death for the murder conviction and to ninety nine years imprisonment for the robbery conviction. <p> In support of the death penalty. (2) the murder was especially henious. (3) the murder was committed to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest or prosecution. (5) the victim of the murder was a peace officer. <u>See</u> Trial Ct. Ross' convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. <u>See</u> <u>Ross v. (2) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at both stages of the proceedings. (3) the aggravating circumstances used to support his death sentence were unconstitutionally interpreted and applied by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and the evidence was insufficient to support them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/95-8682.ma2.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (3/29/1999, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR> Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/95-8682.man.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (9/21/1998, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR> Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/76D459426A05FB0788257098007A3D8D/$file/0099015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted for her predecessor. Chief Judge: Robert Henry Moormann was convicted in Arizona of the first degree murder of his elderly adoptive mother and sentenced to death in 1985. This is an appeal from the district court's denial of his first federal petition for habeas corpus relief. Was not compatible with the Sixth Amendment. 536 U.S. at 589. The Supreme Court held that Ring is not retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review. We have received and considered those briefs and this case can now be decided. Does not apply to cases which were pending at the time AEDPA became effective. It is undisputed that Arizona has not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5FAF42E4EC2BE49988256F8900613980/$file/0515042.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A California death row inmate whose execution is scheduled for Wednesday. Beardslee also makes an emergency motion for a stay of execution.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). I Beardslee was convicted by a jury in San Mateo County. We construe this motion as one for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-5154.htm">97-5154 -- NEWSTED V. GIBSON -- 10/15/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/93-3407.man.html">JOHNSTON V. SINGLETARY (12/8/1998, NO. 93-3407)<BR></A><BR> The police arrested Johnston for Hammond's murder after noticing that his clothes were blood stained. His face was scratched. His statements to the police were inconsistent. (b) a watch that Johnston wore shortly before the murder was found covered with blood in Hammond's home and a pin that Johnston wore on the morning of the murder was found entangled in Hammond's hair. That the murder was especially heinous. Cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0263p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/93-3407.man.html">JOHNSTON V. SINGLETARY (12/8/1998, NO. 93-3407)<BR></A><BR> The police arrested Johnston for Hammond's murder after noticing that his clothes were blood stained. His face was scratched. His statements to the police were inconsistent. (b) a watch that Johnston wore shortly before the murder was found covered with blood in Hammond's home and a pin that Johnston wore on the morning of the murder was found entangled in Hammond's hair. That the murder was especially heinous. Cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3438_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Soy was convicted on arson and explosives charges and was sentenced to life im 2 No. 03 3438 & No. 04 1218 prisonment. Soy's sentence was reduced to 528 months. Facts We have set forth the facts relevant to this litigation in two prior opinions. Soy discussed with Williams who was attending the Indiana State Police Academy at the time and also with Prevatte the possibility of using pipe bombs as diversions for burglaries. The first pipe bomb was detonated in the alley behind a single family dwelling in Hammond. This bomb was designed as a test to determine the response time of emergency personnel. The bomb was attached to a bank of gas meters at the rear of Edo's Lounge in Highland. Which was open to patrons at the time. This bomb was designed as a diversion for an attempted. The bomb was designed to frighten away the occupants of the apartment above the restaurant who might witness the group's attempt to burglarize a neighboring liquor store. A fourth bomb was designed as a diversion for another unsuccessful burglary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/988.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We refer to Respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032103P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that Nooner's substantive claims were without merit. Although we conclude that the district court erred in finding that Nooner's motion to dismiss his petition was knowing and voluntary. Was washing clothes at a Little Rock laundromat at approximately 1:30 a.m. on March 16. An element of which was the use or threat of violence. That the murder was committed for pecuniary gain) and no mitigating circumstances. Nooner was sentenced to death by lethal injection. While the petition was pending. We directed the district court to reexamine its decision and determine whether Nooner was competent to withdraw his petition. The district court determined that Nooner was competent to withdraw his petition and granted his request. The district court also addressed the merits of Nooner's petition and concluded that his stated claims were without merit. (2) that Arkansas' victim impact statute is constitutionally infirm. We first examine the district court's factual finding that Nooner was competent to withdraw his habeas petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-6302.htm">98-6302 -- LAFEVERS V. GIBSON -- 06/16/1999<BR></A><BR> LaFevers raises a number of discrete issues which we have considered in full. BACKGROUND</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Petitioner and his co defendant were convicted in state court of kidnapping and murdering eighty four year old Addie Hawley. Who was driving the car. Although there was evidence presented at trial that indicated that Hawley was raped. They drove the car a short distance away and also set it on fire. <p> Rescue personnel were called to the scene soon after the fires were set. She was still alive. Cannon were tried jointly in March of 1986. LaFevers was retried soon thereafter. The jury found the existence of three aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was especially heinous. (2) there was a probability that Mr. (3) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution. The court reasoned: <p> This Court is in receipt of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Order dated June 4. In pertinent part: <p> [t]his is a death penalty state habeas case with numerous claims of perceived error rising to constitutional dimension. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/013685P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Resentencing was ordered based on his sentencing phase waivers and the lack of a presentence report. These appeals were consolidated with Shafer's direct appeal. Shafer was granted a conditional writ. To become permanent if the state were not to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas and afford him an opportunity to proceed to trial. Keith Dennis Young and Ford Jerry Parker were shot to death on April 29. Each also claimed to have shot one of the victims. Shafer gave a confession that was later used as the factual basis for his guilty pleas. Which was soon taken over by Shafer and Steinmeyer and driven to a remote location. Shafer was charged by information with two counts of first degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action. A public defender was appointed to represent him. Several other defense attorneys were appointed but did little. A motion to transfer Shafer to another facility was eventually filed. Although the court found that some of these allegations were probably true. The officer contacted attorney McGraugh who told him not to interview Shafer unless she was present. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976650.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On their date they were planning to visit some haunted houses in the Birmingham area sponsored by a local radio station. Apparently believing both teenagers were dead. Kinder and Duren were apprehended shortly thereafter in nearby Huffman. Testified that Bedsole was not immediately killed by the small caliber bullet which penetrated the base of her skull. She was rendered paralyzed from the neck down. Before the sentence was actually imposed. Learned that his deceased wife was a fifth cousin of the defendant Duren. The case was transferred to Judge James Garrett. On the ground that the record was insufficient to conduct an adequate proportionality review of the sentence. Duren's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States 3 Supreme Court on October 13. The Rule 20 court concluded that the majority of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits. Duren contends (A) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because he presented an invalid defense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/993643P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Christopher Simmons was convicted in Missouri state court for the first degree murder of Shirley Crook and was sentenced to death. Shirley Crook was abducted from her home and murdered. Her face was covered with duct tape. Her hands and feet were bound together. She was thrown from a train trestle into the Meremac River. The cause of death was drowning. This initial interrogation lasted approximately two hours and was not electronically recorded. The officers told Simmons that they thought he was lying. The detectives also suggested that Simmons' accomplice had been arrested and was possibly confessing at that moment. Is that correct? You were willing to tell us the truth on exactly what took place on the main element of this crime. Is that correct? His motion was denied and the objection was overruled. Who was home alone. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976650.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On their date they were planning to visit some haunted houses in the Birmingham area sponsored by a local radio station. Apparently believing both teenagers were dead. Kinder and Duren were apprehended shortly thereafter in nearby Huffman. Before the sentence was actually imposed. Testified that Bedsole was not immediately killed by the small caliber bullet which penetrated the base of her skull. She was rendered paralyzed from the neck down. Learned that his deceased wife was a fifth cousin of the defendant Duren. The case was transferred to Judge James Garrett. On the ground that the record was insufficient to conduct an adequate proportionality review of the sentence. Duren's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 13. The Rule 20 court concluded that the majority of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and Rule 20 has since been finalized as Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 2 denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/97-6650.man.html">DUREN V. HOPPER (11/20/1998, NO. 97-6650)<BR></A><BR> On their date they were planning to visit some haunted houses in the Birmingham area sponsored by a local radio station. Apparently believing both teenagers were dead. Kinder and Duren were apprehended shortly thereafter in nearby Huffman. Before the sentence was actually imposed. Learned that his deceased wife was a fifth cousin of the defendant Duren. The case was transferred to Judge James Garrett.</P> <P> At the sentencing. On the ground that the record was insufficient to conduct an adequate proportionality review of the sentence. Duren's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 13. The Rule 20 court concluded that the majority of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits. <EM>Duren v. Duren contends (A) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because he presented an invalid defense. Duren asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel: (B) because he failed to present mitigating evidence of alcohol and drug abuse. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/97-6650.man.html">DUREN V. HOPPER (11/20/1998, NO. 97-6650)<BR></A><BR> On their date they were planning to visit some haunted houses in the Birmingham area sponsored by a local radio station. Apparently believing both teenagers were dead. Kinder and Duren were apprehended shortly thereafter in nearby Huffman. Before the sentence was actually imposed. Learned that his deceased wife was a fifth cousin of the defendant Duren. The case was transferred to Judge James Garrett.</P> <P> At the sentencing. On the ground that the record was insufficient to conduct an adequate proportionality review of the sentence. Duren's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 13. The Rule 20 court concluded that the majority of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits. <EM>Duren v. Duren contends (A) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because he presented an invalid defense. Duren asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel: (B) because he failed to present mitigating evidence of alcohol and drug abuse. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314304.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Police officers were called to the residence of Mary Jewel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-6465.htm">98-6465 -- TRICE V. WARD -- 11/15/1999<BR></A><BR> Who was 5' 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0224.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Jason Scott Byram was convicted by a South Carolina jury of murder. He was sentenced to death for the murder. Was robbed and murdered in her home. Johnson indicated to her husband and the police that she was attacked by an individual acting alone. The trial court held a hearing on the admissibility of Byram's confession and held that the statements were freely. The witness also testified that no one was in the van with Byram. Byram was represented at trial by Douglas Strickler as lead counsel and public defender Lee Coggiola as second counsel. Byram was convicted by a jury in Columbia. She related details of his early family life in an abusive home and the fact that he was slow to develop as a young child. Califf also reported that Byram had difficulties in school and that his intelligence was in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0366p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnnie Baston was sentenced to death for the robbery and murder of Chong Mah. Baston argues that the sentencing court considered improper aggravating factors and failed to consider the correct mitigating factors when determining whether a sentence of death was appropriate. Bagley Page 2 I Baston was sentenced to death for the murder of Chong Mah on March 21. He was indicted and convicted on three counts: 1) aggravated murder in violation of Ohio Rev. He was convicted on all counts on February 15. Mah was working at one of their stores. It was later determined that Mah had been shot in the back of the head from a range of two to three inches. When Baston was arrested. He was carrying a gun that proved to be the murder weapon. Told police that an accomplice named Ray was responsible for the murder. The defense argued that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/360FCE3F332AD30488256E5A00707A83/$file/9799029.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) grounds 1 and 12 were meritless.1 The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2241. 14 28) are procedurally barred. We deem these grounds to be abandoned. 2 Slack was decided on April 26. Petrocelli was picked up on the Pyramid Highway and given a ride to Sutcliffe. The car dealer's body was found later that day in a crevice. His back pockets were turned slightly inside out and empty. His wallet was missing. One shot was to the neck. Another shot was to the heart. The third shot was to the back of the head from a distance of two to three inches. .22 caliber bullet casings were found. When he was arrested. Petrocelli was carrying a .22 caliber semi automatic pistol which he testified he always carried loaded and ready to fire. The car dealer was insulted and called him a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/09/96-1344.htm">96-1344 -- NICHOLS V. RENO -- 09/30/1997<BR></A><BR> The district court dismissed the action with prejudice relying on the principle that prosecutorial discretion is presumptively unreviewable by the courts and rejecting Mr. Colo. 1996).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/98-6343.htm">98-6343 -- FOX V. WARD -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Were murdered during a robbery planned and executed by Petitioner Appellant. They were arrested on July 4. Both were convicted of three counts of first degree felony murder. Both were thereafter sentenced to death. Fox's application for post conviction relief was denied by the OCCA in 1994. <u>See</u> <u>Fox v. (2) petitioner's trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Or cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7645B14A0D9FD45988256A0900609A58/$file/9799029.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) grounds 1 and 12 were meritless.1 The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2241. 14 28) are procedurally barred. We deem these grounds to be abandoned. 2 Slack was decided on April 26. Petrocelli was picked up on the Pyramid Highway and given a ride to Sutcliffe. The car dealer's body was found later that day in a crevice. His back pockets were turned slightly inside out and empty. His wallet was missing. One shot was to the neck. Another shot was to the heart. The third shot was to the back of the head from a distance of two to three inches. .22 caliber bullet casings were found. When he was arrested. Petrocelli was carrying a .22 caliber semi automatic pistol which he testified he always carried loaded and ready to fire. The car dealer was insulted and called him a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7581BA34AFFC45D288256E6F007228B0/$file/0199022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stankewitz is on death row in California. In his claim that his counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present substantial mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of Stankewitz's trial. Who is of Native American heritage. Was born into a life of abuse and deprivation. He says he was physically and sexually abused. We conclude that counsel's failure to try to give the jury this kind of information that might have humanized Stankewitz. Appears to have fallen below constitutionally acceptable professional standards. He was headed for Fresno. In his company were his mother. The officers contacted Sacramento police but were unable to determine whether the car had been stolen. They were allowed to leave. The vehicle was impounded. The bus depot was not open when they arrived. Greybeal stated that none of this would have happened if she had had her dog with her. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9734.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Some of which were deemed to be procedurally barred by the district court. Were dismissed without a hearing. Although we find that Keel's arguments are not procedurally barred. Keel stated that he then shot Simmons again because Simmons had a knife and was coming after him. Keel went inside the office and fired a shot through the window and into Simmons' head as the latter was sitting in his truck. Keel entered a plea of not guilty and was capitally tried at the August 12. Keel was again tried capitally during the March 5. This petition was denied on February 27. Keel was scheduled for execution on July 21. Keel's post conviction counsel was given 60 days in which to file a Motion for Appropriate Relief (habeas corpus) in the Edgecombe County Superior Court. No such motion was filed. The superior court was obligated to set a new date for Keel's execution. Keel's Motion for Stay of Execution was denied by the court on December 22. Petition for Writ of Certiorari (to review the order of the Superior Court of Edgecombe County denying the stay of execution) and Petition for Writ of Supersedeas (to overturn the order of the Superior Court of Edgecombe County enforcing the sentence of death) were denied by the North Carolina Supreme Court on December 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0124.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the indictment under which he was convicted was constitutionally defective. Defendant initially thought the idea was crazy and refused. Who was an insurance salesman. White was knocked to the ground. Who was lying faceup on the ground. Although his aorta was nearly severed from his heart. White did not die instantly but would have remained conscious for some period of time and would have felt pain. Police officers retrieved two metal base portions of spent shotgun shells which were 4 BASDEN v. Forensic examination indicated they were consistent with twelvegauge shotgun shells and could have been fired from the same weapon. Taylor and Sylvia White were arrested for murder on 12 February 1992. Defendant was interviewed by Agent Smith and Detective Simms of the Lenoir County Sheriff's Department. He is the youngest of ten children [and thus actually a few months younger than Taylor. He was extremely close to his mother. Who was killed in a car accident when he was fourteen years old. Defendant had been married once for about five years and was a good father to his stepchildren. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-6261.htm">02-6261 -- GIPSON V. JORDAN -- 08/02/2004<BR></A><BR> The sole issue on appeal is whether prosecutorial remarks before the sentencing jury which referenced Gipson's prior convictions impermissibly infringed upon his right to be free from double jeopardy. <strong>REVERSE</strong> the grant of habeas relief. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C84F396001F211588256F080056BF3B/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is reported as Leavitt v. We will put page references to the published opinion in parenthesis. 1 LEAVITT v. As is well known by now. The Supreme Court determined that a capital sentencing scheme wherein the judge decides aggravating facts without a jury is unconstitutional. Leavitt asserts that Ring is retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review. Substitute the following in its place: CONCLUSION Leavitt is not entitled to habeas corpus relief as far as his conviction and the sentencing issues disposed of in this opinion are concerned. He is entitled to have the district court consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his second sentencing hearing. Arave's petition for rehearing is DENIED. Leavitt's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is also DENIED. Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-6075.htm">99-6075 -- PLANTZ V. MASSIE -- 06/09/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/95-6386.man.html">WEEKS V. JONES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Weeks v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This habeas case is before us for the second time. RELEVANT BACKGROUND<p> <p> Varnall Weeks was sentenced to death for his October 1. Weeks asserted that he was incompetent to be executed under <i>Ford v. That he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that claim. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/95-6386.man.html">WEEKS V. JONES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Weeks v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This habeas case is before us for the second time. RELEVANT BACKGROUND<p> <p> Varnall Weeks was sentenced to death for his October 1. Weeks asserted that he was incompetent to be executed under <i>Ford v. That he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that claim. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/046861089BABD98E8825717E00568362/$file/0299007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher *Jill Brown is substituted for Jeanne S. 2006) is amended as follows: The last two lines of slip op. 2802 and the first line of 2803. Replace the sentence: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E2C5308C349848038825713F000874AA/$file/0199015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to an aggravated term of fourteen years for the burglary conviction. 3402 WILLIAMS v. Was shot and killed on March 12. A white male who had been seen wandering around the neighborhood just before the shooting knocked on the Bunchek's door and asked Sylvia Bunchek whether her next door neighbors were home. Bunchek told him that they were not. Wood and the Tautkuses provided the police with a description from which a composite sketch was prepared. This sketch was televised and published in local newspapers on March 13. It was seen by one of Williams's roommates. Williams rented a house that was about three minutes from the Tuatkus home with Walsh. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8E2AFA2EDD6DBA788257153007E7DCA/$file/0199015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is AMENDED by deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph and replacing it with the following sentence: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/92-6813.man.html">HORSLEY V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Horsley v. Horsley was convicted and sentenced to death in Monroe County. Alabama for the capital offense of robbery in which the victim is intentionally killed. Ala.Code </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/92-6813.man.html">HORSLEY V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Horsley v. Horsley was convicted and sentenced to death in Monroe County. Alabama for the capital offense of robbery in which the victim is intentionally killed. Ala.Code </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/94-6430.html">CASTRO V. OKLAHOMA<BR></A><BR> Sr. was found guilty by a jury in Kay County. Castro's direct appeal and state post conviction review of his felony murder conviction and death sentence were denied by the Oklahoma courts.1 Mr. Castro's robbery conviction was vacated on double jeopardy grounds because it was the predicate offense for his felony murder conviction. Castro's felony murder conviction and his subsequent death sentence were affirmed. Castro's petition for rehearing was denied. As were his two applications for state post conviction review. Castro's crime are undisputed. While he was rummaging through either the register or Ms. The four additional issues we leave unaddressed in this opinion are: (1) the effectiveness of Mr. Castro was only guilty of second degree murder because he never formed the requisite intent to kill Ms. Castro actively contested the State during the bifurcated penalty phase of his trial.3 The State presented evidence of two aggravating factors to justify the imposition of a death sentence: (1) the murder was especially heinous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/355D3F746D70B25E88256FEA000A8C88/$file/0299008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Kozinski *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: Richard Boyde was convicted in California state court of robbery. Boyde claimed he waited outside as Ellison entered the station. 3 Ellison was convicted of robbery. BROWN 4495 Brady Claim One of the key issues at trial was whether Boyde. Although there was some physical and circumstantial evidence on this score. Boyde's counsel could have used it to impeach Ellison's credibility. The key question is whether a secret agreement existed. 38 (Cal. 1988) that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0225.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Circuit Judge: Sammy Crystal Perkins was convicted by a North Carolina jury for the capital murder and rape of LaSheena Renae </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-3135.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STONE (4/22/1998, NO. 96-3135)<BR></A><BR> Senior District Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P><CENTER> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> All three defendants were charged in Count I of an eleven count indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Defendant Kelly Knight Stone ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3DC0E87BDDA3BAB88256EB300548E33/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung. Another exceedingly peculiar and unique wound inflicted during this attack was a cut made by the attacker through which he then removed her sexual organs. For it was done in a manner that is difficult to accomplish. The evidence pointing to Leavitt was powerful. If circumstantial he was not caught redhanded. The victim's body was not found for several days which caused the destruction of some evidentiary markers. Who thought that Leavitt was the culprit. Another strange aspect of the case was that a person supposedly named Mike Jenkins also called the police a couple of times during that period and showed knowledge of details of the crime that only the killer himself would know. Mike Jenkins was not known in Blackfoot and was not heard of thereafter. Is 7780 LEAVITT v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0323p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district court should have vacated not only his sentence. Petitioner was convicted of hiring James Earl Darby to murder Archie Moore in violation of Ohio Revised Code §§ 2903.01(A) and 2929.04(A)(2). Berry later told some friends that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983293P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Antonio Richardson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Missouri state court. When they were finished. Unaware that he was under the bridge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-3135.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STONE (4/22/1998, NO. 96-3135)<BR></A><BR> Senior District Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P><CENTER> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> All three defendants were charged in Count I of an eleven count indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Defendant Kelly Knight Stone ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063651P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which concludes that Missouri's lethal injection protocol is unconstitutional. I. Michael Anthony Taylor pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death in Missouri state court for the abduction. Brutal murder of 15 year old Ann Harrison.1 His convictions and sentence have withstood judicial scrutiny on direct appeal. The timeliness of which was not contested. A 5 gram dose of sodium pentothal (also known as thiopental) was injected to render the inmate unconscious. A 60 milligram dose of pancuronium bromide was administered to paralyze the inmate's muscles. A 240 milliequivalent injection of potassium chloride was injected to stop the heart. Taylor now asserts that Missouri's procedure creates a significant risk that he might suffer the 1 We will not here recount the facts of his crime as they are not relevant to this 2 appeal. wanton infliction of pain because if the first chemical. He will feel the pain of the third chemical. Which indisputably will cause an excruciating burning sensation as it travels through his veins to induce a heart attack. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1951.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are essentially undisputed. Steve Wentland were drinking at Moore's house. Who was seated in the front. Who was driving. After Wentland was down. Where they awoke Conner's employer and were given access to a warehouse. He was apprehended in Texas on No. 03 1951 3 January 30. The penalty phase hearing was held on October 9. Including that his confession was improperly admitted because it was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Which under Indiana law is a remedy limited to issues not known at trial or not available on direct appeal. Including: (1) his confession was obtained through manipulation. Was therefore improperly admitted at trial. (3) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. Legal Standards A federal court may grant habeas relief only if the petitioner demonstrates that he is in custody </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-6056.htm">00-6056 -- ROJEM V. GIBSON -- 03/30/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/003.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Defendant took a taxi cab from the convenience store to the road where Ewing's house was located. Defendant told the cab driver that he was upset with his girlfriend. He was going to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-6381a.htm">98-6381A -- BERGET V. GIBSON -- 08/05/1999<BR></A><BR> The correct citation is <strong><em>Foster v. The matter of sentencing was determined at a bench trial resulting in a death penalty on the murder count. We affirm the judgment of the district court. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Petitioner Roger James Berget and co defendant Mikell Smith are accused of carjacking and then murdering Rick Patterson. The facts of the murder are recounted in the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals: <p> During the late night hours of October 19. Fearing that Patterson was still alive and could crawl away. Another shot was fired. <p> <strong><em>Berget v. The trial court held a sentencing hearing during which evidence was presented as to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The state trial court found four aggravating circumstances: (1) the crime was committed for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest and prosecution. (4) the murder was especially heinous. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on all claims raised in the petition. <p> <center><strong>STANDARDS OF REVIEW</strong></center> <p> The first issue presented in this case is whether the more stringent standards of review of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) apply. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610920.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The inmates have failed to identify a lessor form of state provided legal assistance to which they might be entitled. Donaldson Correctional Facility and Holman State Prison (the facilities in which the inmates are incarcerated). The parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings and enter judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The inmates' Sixth Amendment claims lacked merit (referring to its previous order in which the court ruled that there is no constitutional right to stateappointed counsel in postconviction proceedings). We review the district court's conclusions of Although the inmates' First Amendment claims are not specifically mentioned in the magistrate judge's final order. The court recognized that the right of access is multifaceted and dependent upon various constitutional formulations. Standing The inmates contend that they are being denied meaningful access to the courts. It is now clearly established that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. In some instances that right requires States to shoulder affirmative obligations to assure that indigent prisoners have an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-6381.htm">98-6381 -- BERGET V. GIBSON -- 08/05/1999<BR></A><BR> The matter of sentencing was determined at a bench trial resulting in a death penalty on the murder count. We affirm the judgment of the district court. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Petitioner Roger James Berget and co defendant Mikell Smith are accused of carjacking and then murdering Rick Patterson. The facts of the murder are recounted in the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals: <p> During the late night hours of October 19. Fearing that Patterson was still alive and could crawl away. Another shot was fired. <p> <strong><em>Berget v. The trial court held a sentencing hearing during which evidence was presented as to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The state trial court found four aggravating circumstances: (1) the crime was committed for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest and prosecution. (4) the murder was especially heinous. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on all claims raised in the petition. <p> <center><strong>STANDARDS OF REVIEW</strong></center> <p> The first issue presented in this case is whether the more stringent standards of review of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) apply. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71247C032FA0577388256AE60060B0F9/$file/9899022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Procedural History Phillips was convicted on January 31. Phillips was once again sentenced to death on March 13. Two of those petitions were denied following evidentiary hearings. The other two were denied without hearings. Holding that the extraordinary delay that Phillips had already experienced in seeking review of his constitutional claims justified consideration of his guilt phase claims even though his death sentence was still under review in the California courts and would be for another five years. That he is factually innocent of capital murder. Its motion was denied on January 14. The first was denied without prejudice on October 17. The second was denied on July 13. This appeal followed.1 1 While this appeal was pending. Phillips's second death sentence was affirmed by the California Supreme Court on January 24. The conviction portion of which is now before us. So that the two parts of Phillips's habeas proceeding may be considered together and so that any future appeal will present all conviction and sentencing issues at one time. 14477 B. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEB226D1B4D7C75788256E5A00707D0C/$file/9899022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Procedural History Phillips was convicted on January 31. Phillips was once again sentenced to death on March 13. Two of those petitions were denied following evidentiary hearings. The other two were denied without hearings. Holding that the extraordinary delay that Phillips had already experienced in seeking review of his constitutional claims justified consideration of his guilt phase claims even though his death sentence was still under review in the California courts and would be for another five years. That he is factually innocent of capital murder. Its motion was denied on January 14. The first was denied without prejudice on October 17. The second was denied on July 13. This appeal followed.1 1 While this appeal was pending. Phillips's second death sentence was affirmed by the California Supreme Court on January 24. The conviction portion of which is now before us. So that the two parts of Phillips's habeas proceeding may be considered together and so that any future appeal will present all conviction and sentencing issues at one time. 14477 B. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep27/02-60385.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sr. was convicted of capital murder by a Rankin County. In the penalty phase of the trial the jury returned a death penalty verdict and found that the capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain. That the murder was especially heinous. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Nixon v. Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in 1989. Who had married his wife six months earlier (a scant three months after her prior divorce was finalized). Tucker was soon discovered by Tucker's co worker and was taken to the hospital. Nixon was arrested after being identified in a lineup by Mr. Nixon was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Nixon filed a federal habeas petition that was denied by the district court. application for a COA followed. Because the petition was filed before the effective date of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60385.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sr. was convicted of capital murder by a Rankin County. In the penalty phase of the trial the jury returned a death penalty verdict and found that the capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain. That the murder was especially heinous. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Nixon v. Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in 1989. Who had married his wife six months earlier (a scant three months after her prior divorce was finalized). Tucker was soon discovered by Tucker's co worker and was taken to the hospital. Nixon was arrested after being identified in a lineup by Mr. Nixon was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Nixon filed a federal habeas petition that was denied by the district court. application for a COA followed. Because the petition was filed before the effective date of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-7116.htm">98-7116 -- WALLACE V. WARD -- 09/10/1999<BR></A><BR> Application of the new standards of review set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (ADEPA) would have an impermissible retroactive effect. (3) his trial counsel was ineffective due to a conflict of interest and his failure to investigate mitigating evidence. Who was aware of the McLaughlin murder. Petitioner was arrested near the scene a short while later. <p> Petitioner confessed to the two murders and pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder. The murders were especially heinous. Petitioner submits that application of AEDPA's new standards to state court proceedings completed before enactment or effectiveness of AEDPA is unconstitutionally retroactive. 1999) (unpublished order and judgment in capital case citing <u>Rogers</u> and holding that application of AEDPA to cases filed after its effective date is not impermissibly retroactive). <p> a state prisoner will be entitled to federal habeas corpus relief only if he can establish that a claim adjudicated by the state courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3834.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The trial judge conducted a sentencing hearing and determined that Henderson was eligible for the death penalty because he was over 18 years old at the time of the murder and he had killed Boyd in the course of another felony. The judge then found that there were no mitigating factors and sentenced Henderson to death. Concluded that Henderson had failed to establish that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 00 3778 3 sel was ineffective in failing to present medical evidence in support of his claim that he was physically coerced into confessing to the crimes. Henderson then cross appealed after receiving a certificate of appealability from this court on the other two issues mentioned above: (1) whether he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a sentencing jury since he was not informed that the jury must unanimously determine eligibility for the death sentence. (2) whether trial counsel denied Henderson effective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing in failing to present corroborating medical testimony that his confession was coerced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/961892P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before the court is Joseph Amrine's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Amrine was convicted in 1986 for murdering a fellow prisoner. He was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court. As was the denial of post conviction relief. He filed this petition for federal habeas relief in 1990 and an amended petition in 1991.1 The federal Amrine's petition thus predated the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 1 district court2 denied habeas relief in 1996 on the basis that his claims were either procedurally barred or without merit. That motion was granted by this court en banc. Finding that the new evidence was not reliable and that Amrine therefore could not make out a claim of actual innocence. The order was not forwarded to this court and not until March 2000 were we able to obtain a copy. Was stabbed to death in a prison recreation room on October 18. Amrine was charged with the crime. Inmate Terry Russell testified that relations between Amrine and Barber were tense because of the rumors and that Amrine had confronted Barber and threatened him about a week before the murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-3725.man.html">OATS V. SINGLETARY (5/19/1998, NO. 96-3725)<BR></A><BR> Was killed during a robbery of the store. The cause of her death was a single bullet fired from approximately one foot away that penetrated her right eye and her brain. Donnie Williams was arrested as a suspect in the high speed chase. Oats was arrested as a suspect in the high speed chase and given <EM>Miranda</EM> warnings. The firearm was later discovered on the roadside near the location described by Oats.</P> <P> In his interview with the police. Ballistics tests conducted on the gun recovered from the roadside established that it was the same weapon used in both the ABC liquor store and Jeanette Dyer shootings.</P> <P> Oats was indicted on two counts for robbery and first degree murder. Oats was also charged separately in another case for the robbery and attempted murder at the ABC liquor store that occurred on December 19. Oats was examined. All of whom reported to the court and to Oats' counsel that Oats was sane at the time of the offenses and competent to stand trial.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014630.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 8 the date of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-3725.man.html">OATS V. SINGLETARY (5/19/1998, NO. 96-3725)<BR></A><BR> Was killed during a robbery of the store. The cause of her death was a single bullet fired from approximately one foot away that penetrated her right eye and her brain. Donnie Williams was arrested as a suspect in the high speed chase. Oats was arrested as a suspect in the high speed chase and given <EM>Miranda</EM> warnings. The firearm was later discovered on the roadside near the location described by Oats.</P> <P> In his interview with the police. Ballistics tests conducted on the gun recovered from the roadside established that it was the same weapon used in both the ABC liquor store and Jeanette Dyer shootings.</P> <P> Oats was indicted on two counts for robbery and first degree murder. Oats was also charged separately in another case for the robbery and attempted murder at the ABC liquor store that occurred on December 19. Oats was examined. All of whom reported to the court and to Oats' counsel that Oats was sane at the time of the offenses and competent to stand trial.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></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<BR></A><BR> If there is a right of access. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/02-6217.htm">02-6217 -- CANNON V. MULLIN -- 07/19/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kentucky were conducting surveillance of Watford. Who was wanted in the State of Illinois on charges of murder and in the Central District of Illinois for violation of federal probation. Watford was also suspected of being involved in drug trafficking and maintaining a storage facility at which he stored between two and three kilograms of cocaine. The Marshals were warned that Watford likely would be armed with a 9mm handgun and wearing a bullet proof vest. They pulled over the yellow Toyota pick up truck in which Watford was riding as a passenger and arrested him without incident. When Hale later left his apartment and was confronted by police. Agents found 28 baggies that were later confirmed to contain 292.6 grams of crack cocaine. 000 in cash and a driver's license displaying Watford's photograph was also present in the apartment. Watford was not immediately charged in that district. Was instead removed to state custody in Illinois to stand trial on the unrelated murder charges. On the day the Indictment was returned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412676ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. Rehearing en banc is DENIED. /s/ J. This Court has left intact our circuit law on Booker plain error as it is laid out by our panel decision in this case. Which was followed in Duncan and Curtis. Establishes that the use of extra verdict enhancements under the pre Booker mandatory guidelines scheme is Sixth Amendment error that is plain. Shelton adds to our circuit law the rule that while pre Booker sentencing free of any extra verdict enhancement is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment. It is statutory error under the remedial part of the Booker decision. The upshot of our four decisions is that the first two prongs of the four prong plain error test are met in all pre Booker sentencing cases.1 To that In United States v. (2) that is plain. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAF6480E605ABF9688256BB5005BE541/$file/0099008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jennings claims his trial counsel was unreasonably and prejudicially ineffective under the standard set forth in Strickland v. He further argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because of multi 6844 JENNINGS v. Jennings' fragile and failing mental health information that would have made a non first degree conviction reasonably probable we find that Mr. Jennings was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment during the guilt phase of his trial. Ligature marks suggesting she was bound with rope by her neck and ankles. Aspermatic semen containing antigens consistent with his blood was found on the victim. Jennings lost a knife whose blade length was consistent with the victim's stab wounds. Numerous sources noted that he was an habitual. Boechne was placed from the victim's home. (2) he was not competent to aid and assist counsel at trial. (3) he was impermissibly shackled at trial. The issues remaining on appeal are Mr. A generalized Certificate of Probable Cause (CPC) like that issued by the district court in this case is no longer sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-6145.htm">00-6145 -- FIELDS V. GIBSON -- 01/17/2002<BR></A><BR> A certificate of appealability was granted on the following four issues: (1) whether trial counsels' pressure of Fields to accept a blind guilty plea resulted in its being involuntary. (4) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6134.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was denied and subsequently affirmed by the OCCA. Relief was denied on all grounds on March 25. Boltz: that the evidence was insufficient to establish the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9728.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The petition was transferred to the Virginia Supreme Court. King's case was transferred to the Western District of Virginia. King was released on parole from imprisonment for a prior offense. Becky wrote on a yellow pad the names and telephone numbers of three real estate agents whose signs were displayed on vacant houses. Carolyn Horton Rogers was one of the agents whose name and telephone number Becky wrote down. 3 From a nearby shopping center and at King's direction. Rogers was not in. A ring and an earring had been forcibly removed from her body and were missing. Rogers' automobile was found at a nearby shopping mall. Were presented and cashed by Becky at Roanoke area banks. King and Becky were arrested in the stolen van in New Philadelphia. He said he 4 did not have any. Becky left and was gone </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0210.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Swisher asserts that he is entitled to relief as to several of those claims including. I. The undisputed facts of Swisher's case are summarized in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Virginia resolving Swisher's appeal from his conviction. Her body was discovered on February 21. Swisher was at an apartment with two friends. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20122.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of capital murder in Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. (2) he was denied his Eighth Amendment right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment. McWilliams and Adams were discussing stealing a car. Adams told McWilliams that he should have gotten the man. Who was covered in blood. Adams was stopped for speeding. A search of the car yielded several firearms one of which was the weapon used to kill Rodriguez. McWilliams was sentenced to death on September 9. His application is therefore subject to the AEDPA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/00-6292.htm">00-6292 -- DUCKETT V. MULLIN -- 09/04/2002<BR></A><BR> We conclude that Duckett is not entitled to habeas relief on any of these claims. John Howard was found dead in his apartment in Oklahoma City. His hands and feet were bound with a wire hanger. There were blood stains and spatters throughout the apartment. Howard's keys and car were missing. Howard picked up Duckett an escapee from prison who had been convicted of robbery by force while Duckett was hitchhiking on an interstate in Oklahoma City. Duckett was arrested in Clear Creek. Howard was on his feet and breathing. Noted that <p> [the victim's] ankle was broken and he had been struck at <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-41459.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Jones's fingerprint was found on a bottle of fingernail polish found in the house. The mother's blood was found on his clothing. The daughter's blood was fo und on his shoes. Jones was found guilty of capital murder. The jury found that there was a probability that he would constitute a continuing threat to society and that there was insufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances to preclude a death sentence. Tell this jury what suddenly caused you on the 17th to finally tell the story that you are now telling us is the truth? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE0NTdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1457_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The finding of guilt is affirmed. The sentence is vacated. The cause is remanded for resentencing. Judge) from informing the jury about the mandatory ten year sentence that would be imposed on defendant if he were convicted of the advertising offense. After the writ was issued. (3) the constitutionality under the Eighth Amendment of the statute requiring the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence.1 Though the issue was not The E ighth Am endm ent to the Constitution provide s in relevant part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0127p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Patricia Newsome was found strangled on her kitchen floor. Defendant was indicted for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. Defendant was a keyboard musician who was out of work most of the time. An angry call for Newsome was received by the office receptionist. Who was a stranger to her. Defendant told Alvin that the lady whose house he lived in was throwing him out. Barbara Beck and Patricia Denier were dining at the Briarwood Lounge on Hamilton Avenue. Both women thought that he was in shock and was acting strange. Anthony Studenka was at DJ's Pub on Winton Road on the night of March 27. That person was defendant. Told Studenka that he had killed some kid who was a drug pusher. Springfield Township Police Officer Greg Huber was in front of DJ's Pub when he heard a radio call that a male at the bar was bragging that he had killed someone. Defendant told Huber that he was in a fight across the street at Lulu's bar. Defendant told the officers that the story of the killing he was telling inside the bar was really about a Clint Eastwood movie. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Glen Coe appeals the denial of habeas relief regarding the Tennessee state courts' determination that he is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The trial court determined that Coe was entitled to a hearing on this issue because he had satisfied a threshold showing that there existed a genuine disputed issue regarding his competency to be executed. The hearing was held from January 24 to January 28. 2000 that Coe is competent to be executed. Coe filed in federal district court an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Tennessee courts' determination that he is competent for execution under Ford. Further briefing and an appellate oral argument are not necessary. Wainwright This circuit has never been presented with the opportunity to examine the adequacy of a state's procedures to determine whether a death row prisoner is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from executing a prisoner who is insane. Justice Powell concluded that prisoners will be considered insane for the purposes of competency to be executed when they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE0NTcgd2l0aCBlcnJhdGEucGRm/03-1457%20with%20errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The finding of guilt is affirmed. The sentence is vacated. The cause is remanded for resentencing. Judge) from informing the jury about the mandatory ten year sentence that would be imposed on defendant if he were convicted of the advertising offense. After the writ was issued. (3) the constitutionality under the Eighth Amendment of the statute requiring the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence.1 Though the issue was not The E ighth Am endm ent to the Constitution provide s in relevant part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/033721P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Russell Bucklew was convicted in Missouri state court of capital murder and sentenced to death. Where Ray was still living. Upon concluding that Ray and Sanders were romantically involved. Ray felt it was unsafe to return to her home. A trooper and Bucklew were both wounded in the process. That he was despondent over his broken relationship with Ray and his medical condition. Bucklew's ex wife said that he was a great father to their son. Which is inoperable and requires extensive pain medication. Bucklew's cavernous hemangioma </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Petition for Rehearing is therefore denied. This court has invalidated Allen's sentence on nothing more than its unexplained speculation that some juror might have voted to sentence Allen differently had the jury not been instructed that it had to unanimously find the following inconsequential (if not affirmatively damaging) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6021.htm">98-6021 -- ROBEDEAUX V. GIBSON -- 07/08/1999<BR></A><BR> Petitioner James Glenn Robedeaux was convicted of first degree murder in Oklahoma County District Court for the death of Nancy McKinney. That relief was denied by both the trial court and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. <u>See</u> <u>Robedeaux v. A piece of her arm and hand were found several months later scattered over three counties in central Oklahoma. The jury concluded that Robedeaux was a continuing threat to society. That the murder was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/62F05B57080BCEDC8825706E004F5E59/$file/0357253.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Prasoprat contends that his due process rights were violated when the extradition court denied his motion seeking discovery of information related to the use of the death penalty in Thailand for drug offenses. He also contends that the extradition court should have denied his extradition on humanitarian grounds. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Extradition from the United States is a diplomatic process that is initiated by a request from the nation seeking extradition directly to the Department of State. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1649p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <u>Circuit Judge</u>. <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1562p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying the motion of Maxine Davidson White and Betty Heidnik requesting a stay of the execution of Gary Heidnik. The motion was filed in the district court just over two days ago (April 15. Was entered the next day at 6:00 p.m. Which is a continuum of a similarly paced state court proceeding that commenced on April 11. 1997 and was concluded in the trial court on April 15. 1997 (the matter is presently pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court). Is a function of the fact that the Governor of Pennsylvania has issued a warrant for Heidnik's execution in the Pennsylvania death chamber at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY These proceedings have their origin in a series of heinous crimes committed by Heidnik over a six month period in 1986 87. His execution was delayed by the decision of the former Governor not to issue warrants of execution. Attorneys seeking to represent Heidnik filed a petition in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas asserting that Heidnik was incompetent to be executed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1649p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting in part petitioner appellee/cross appellant Clifford Smith's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We will vacate the judgment of the district court in part. Smith was convicted offirst degree murder. A third eyewitness identified the car in which Smith and Alston were traveling just after the robbery. Which was later found at the homes of Alston. Items taken from the three robbery victims were later found at the homes of Barrow and Yancey. Although there was evidence that both Alston and Smith carried handguns that day. He wanted the ring </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-5162.htm">98-5162 -- HAWKINS V. HARGETT -- 12/29/1999<BR></A><BR> The issue before us is whether the prison sentence imposed on Mr. Hawkins is unconstitutionally disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This decision was upheld on appeal by both the Tulsa County District Court and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Which was referred to a magistrate judge for an evidentiary hearing and proportionality review. It is important to make clear what Mr. He is not disputing the state's initial decision to certify him to stand trial as an adult. Hawkins urges us to examine whether the consecutive sentences were constitutionally disproportionate in light of the fact that at the time he committed the crimes he was only thirteen years old. <p> <strong>A. The Supreme Court interpreted the Eighth Amendment to prohibit a sentence that was disproportionate to the offense. <em>See Weems v. This decision was the Court's sole instance of such a holding through the end of the decade. The opinion was a fractured one. Argued that cruelty and unusualness are to be determined solely by reference to the punishment at issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946285.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Scott Whitehead was driving his pickup truck in Birmingham. Donaldson noticed that Whitehead was unconscious. It is not merely a question of sentencing. Found that death is only a sentencing enhancement feature. That Whitehead was physically located </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310513.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claims that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the state trial court refused to sever his case from his co defendant. Whose confession which also implicated Grossman was introduced at trial. I. Grossman was convicted of first degree murder by a state court jury in Pinellas County. While she was engaged in the lawful performance of her duties. Which was denied by the trial judge 1 in an order subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida. Whether Grossman received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.2 The judge who resolved Grossman's post conviction claim for relief was the same judge who presided over the original trial. Are these. Grossman was living in nearby Pasco County and was on probation following a recent prison term. Florida wildlife officer Margaret (Peggy) Park was on patrol in the area and became suspicious when she saw Grossman and Taylor. Grossman pleaded with the officer not to arrest him because possessing a weapon and being outside of Pasco County would have violated the terms of his probation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI3OTNhbV9vcG4ucGRm/03-2793am_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was harmless error. BACKGROUND The facts of the case are derived largely from the factual account in the district court decision. Which in turn was drawn from the Appellate Division's decision affirming Zappulla's conviction. Zappulla was arrested at the Golden Gate Inn in Brooklyn. The police officers discovered the fur coat that was 2 reported stolen and the dead body of a prostitute. Was hit by a car and taken to the hospital. Zappulla was again questioned. Although this time he was not warned about his Miranda rights and was questioned about the more serious crime of murder. The 3 prosecutor emphasized how the confession was credible and tied in with other evidence in the case and how it provided vital evidence of motive. The court found that the confession was defective because 24 hours had elapsed between the initial questioning of Zappulla. Where Miranda warnings were given. Where the officers questioned him without Miranda warnings about a different crime and custody was not continuous. Found that failure to suppress the confession was harmless in light of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0323p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thomas Ross was convicted in Michigan of first degree felony murder. Ross was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. That Ross was therefore denied due process when he was convicted of first degree murder. Arguing that Ross's habeas petition was untimely. Ross contends that the district court should have equitably tolled the limitations period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6F954C769582125388257235007DB22D/$file/0499008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. YLST The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Raley was convicted in California state court. Because deliberations that are intrinsic to the jury process are not grounds for reversal. Because the records in question were not Brady material. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was charged with the kidnap. He also was charged with the kidnap. The petition was stayed pending exhaustion of some claims at the state level and. Was denied on all grounds. The findings of the California Supreme Court are presumed correct. Although the mansion was not generally open to the public. Witnesses who had taken such tours with Petitioner testified that he had asked them to go into certain rooms of the mansion and scream to show that the rooms were soundproof. L.M. was 17 and J.G. was 16. Petitioner was on duty guarding the house. Sounds were heard outside. Petitioner said that the police were there with training dogs and that the girls needed to hide or Petitioner would lose his job. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFF91FB11237EF7D8825714F006B4BE6/$file/0499008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Raley was convicted in California state court. Because deliberations that are intrinsic to the jury process are 4150 RALEY v. Because the records in question were not Brady material. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was charged with the kidnap. He also was charged with the kidnap. The petition was stayed pending exhaustion of some claims at the state level and. Was denied on all grounds. The findings of the California Supreme Court are presumed correct. Although the mansion was not generally open to the public. Witnesses who had taken such tours with Petitioner testified that he had asked them to go into certain rooms of the mansion and scream to show that the rooms were soundproof. L.M. was 17 and J.G. was 16. Petitioner was on duty guarding the house. Sounds were heard outPetitioner asks us to grant a Certificate of Appealability on two additional issues. Petitioner said that the police were there with training dogs and that the girls needed to hide or Petitioner would lose his job. He was holding a large knife. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033162p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006) Zulima Farber is automatically substituted as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c)(2). He also argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because (1) he was denied a speedy trial. (2) his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue his right to a speedy trial. (3) he was effectively denied his right to counsel because he was unrepresented at a critical stage of the proceedings while he was in custody on capital charges. We will affirm because we conclude that the District Court applied the correct standard of review in determining that the Appellate Division's decision was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/999005.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> George Banks was convicted by a Luzerne County. Was sentenced to death. Which was denied. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Because Banks's habeas corpus petition was filed after April of 1996. 1 the role of the District Court in reviewing the state court proceedings was governed by AEDPA.2 Accordingly. The District Court's task was to determine whether the state court's decision was either contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Because the question of whether the District Court appropriately applied the AEDPA standard of review is a question of law. The AR 15 is a civilian version of the military's M 16 rifle. S 2254(d) states: (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to. Who is bi racial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062823P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was robbed and the two store clerks working there. Were shot and killed with a blast from a 12 gauge shotgun. His mother reported to the police that two guns were missing from the car's trunk. Simpson was arrested. Harrison pleaded guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to two consecutive twenty year terms of imprisonment. Harrison testified that he was outside pumping gas when Mr. Simpson testified that he was outside putting air in a tire when Mr. The jury found three aggravating factors: that the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing an arrest. That the murders were committed for pecuniary gain. Simpson was sentenced to death by lethal injection. Simpson claims that his eighth amendment rights were violated when the state court refused to instruct the jury that Mr. Harrison's lesser sentence was a mitigating circumstance that could be considered in fixing Mr. He also claims that he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of state post conviction counsel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-5254.htm">96-5254 -- NGUYEN V. REYNOLDS -- 11/07/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-7139.htm">98-7139 -- JAMES V. GIBSON -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR> James was convicted of first degree murder in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. Were incarcerated in the Muskogee City/Federal Jail. Berry had snitched on them and was responsible for their arrest. While the two were playing. Brown that someone was coming. Van Woudenberg were charged with and tried together for the murder.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20338.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Morris claimed that both his trial and habeas counsel failed to investigate and present evidence that he claims is both exculpatory and mitigating in nature. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Because we find that the district court was correct to conclude that Morris's state habeas petition was denied on an independent and adequate state procedural ground. Morris stated that the attack occurred because Fields did not have any drugs to sell to him. He remained in a hospital for several months and was then transferred to a nursing home. The state habeas court found no material disputed facts and decided that an evidentiary hearing on Morris's claims was not required. Morris filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 1 The Texas special issues were: I. Is there a probability that Morris would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9729.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were violated when the prosecutor failed to disclose certain evidence at 1 Because Strickler's petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed prior to the April 24. We need not decide whether these amendments apply in this case because Strickler's claims are either procedurally defaulted or meritless under the more lenient pre existing standards. We are confident the AEDPA is of no help to Strickler. 2 trial. Strickler appeals the district court's dismissal of his claim that the Virginia Supreme Court's proportionality review of his death sentence was constitutionally deficient. Strickler was convicted of. The facts surrounding Whitlock's murder are: On January 5. The car was clean at the time. Anne Stolzfus was in a store at Valley Mall with her daughter at 6:00 p.m. when Strickler. Strickler was behaving in such a loud. He was dressed in casual. Stolzfus was leaving the mall soon thereafter. He then turned to the Mercury that Leanne was driving. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May20/03-20687-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of capital murder in Texas state court and sentenced to death. Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Appealability from Denial of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. After Petitioner was convicted of this crime and his sentence was imposed. All of which were properly raised in the district court. Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective at the sentencing stage of his trial for failing to present evidence that Petitioner complied with his probation officer while on probation as a juvenile. Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial for declining to inform the jury that Petitioner would have been eligible for parole after serving thirty five years if he had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner also avers that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to seek the enforcement of the state trial court's order purporting to preclude the state from seeking the death penalty. Petitioner claims that 2 his appellate counsel was ineffective for not properly raising a Batson claim on direct appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3041b.html">USA V. ANDERSON<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May24/03-20687-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of capital murder in Texas state court and sentenced to death. Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Appealability from Denial of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. After Petitioner was convicted of this crime and his sentence was imposed. All of which were properly raised in the district court. Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective at the sentencing stage of his trial for failing to present evidence that Petitioner complied with his probation officer while on probation as a juvenile. Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial for declining to inform the jury that Petitioner would have been eligible for parole after serving thirty five years if he had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner also avers that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to seek the enforcement of the state trial court's order purporting to preclude the state from seeking the death penalty. Petitioner claims that 2 his appellate counsel was ineffective for not properly raising a Batson claim on direct appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May26/03-20687.CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of capital murder in Texas state court and sentenced to death. Petitioner's Application for a Cert ificate of Appealability from Denial of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. After Petitioner was convicted of this crime and his sentence was imposed. All of which were properly raised in the district court. Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective at the sentencing stage of his trial for failing to present evidence that Petitioner complied with his probation officer while on probation as a juvenile. Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial for declining to inform the jury that Petitioner would have been eligible for parole after serving thirty five years if he had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner also avers that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to seek the enforcement of the state trial court's 2 order purporting to preclude the state from seeking the death penalty. Petitioner claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not properly raising a Batson claim on direct appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0052p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. The petition is denied. Because dissents from our court's denial of rehearings en banc are quite rare. The lack of any countering views at the time of such a dissent may be taken to mean that the contrary views presented are unanswerable. It is usually the case that the original opinion has carefully considered and answered any substantive points made in the dissent from denial of rehearing en banc.1 So it is in this case. Which is exactly what Judge Rogers's opinion did. Which focuses wholly on a characterization of the defendant's mental condition that goes far beyond argument made by the dissenting panel member when the issue was considered in the panel opinion. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9625.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Ruth Dickie. King knocked on the door and heard a noise that sounded like someone was being dragged across the floor. She was on her back. Her legs were spread. She was bleeding and did not appear to be breathing. Hairs were found clutched 2 in her bloodstained hands and on her left leg. A telephone receiver located near her head was covered with blood. Two of which would have caused her death. Foreign hairs found on Dickie's body were determined to be identical in all microscopic characteristics to hair samples taken from Breard. Hairs found clutched in Dickie's hands were Caucasian hairs microscopically similar to Dickie's own head hair and bore evidence that they had been pulled from her head by the roots. Breard was indicted on charges of attempted rape and capital murder. He was convicted of both charges. Which are parts of the Chapter 153 provisions that govern all habeas proceedings in federal courts. If a habeas petition was filed before April 24. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul08/03-41131.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:1 Richard Cartwright was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. That he was denied a fair and impartial jury and due process. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 Cartwright and two other men were indicted for the capital murder of a man they lured to the waterfront area of Corpus Christi. The medical examiner testified that the knife wounds were not fatal. That the gunshot wound was the cause of death. 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-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-41131.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:1 Richard Cartwright was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. That he was denied a fair and impartial jury and due process. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 Cartwright and two other men were indicted for the capital murder of a man they lured to the waterfront area of Corpus Christi. The medical examiner testified that the knife wounds were not fatal. That the gunshot wound was the cause of death. 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-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0894p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment of the district court. I. FACTS Melvin Johnson is black. He was convicted of second degree murder. The victims of these crimes were an elderly white man and his sister. Both of whom were beaten by their assailants. The male victim was known to have solicited sexual favors from young black boys over a period of time prior to his death. Only three of whom were black. Was called for voir dire questioning. Was called. We believe he has exercised it because this particular Juror is black. Preemptory [sic] challenges are sometimes arbitrary and even capricious by definition. I have a basis for challenging this Juror. There is no challenge for cause. I have a right to a preemptory [sic] challenge and I'm going to exercise it. If I have to state all my reasons on the record. THE COURT: The Courts have already ruled the appellate Courts have already ruled that preemptory [sic] challenges are preemptory [sic] challenges. As far as the Court is concerned. The preemptory [sic] challenge is just that. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4262A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition is denied. 2 No. 02 4262 RIPPLE. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 explains that rehearing should be granted when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/001492P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted in Arkansas state court in 1979 of the capital felony murder of Mary Lou York. He was sentenced to death for the murder and to life imprisonment for the robbery. Singleton's conviction and sentence for capital felony murder were affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in November 1981. The aggravated robbery conviction and sentence were vacated on double jeopardy grounds. That (1) he was not competent to be executed under Ford v. (2) he was denied his constitutional right to a jury selected from a venire representing a fair cross section of the community where he was tried. (3) he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Holding that Singleton's death sentence was invalid under the Eighth Amendment because the State had relied on an invalid aggravating factor. The court held that pecuniary gain was not a valid aggravating factor because it was also an element of the robberymurder charge. The Arkansas death penalty statute was unconstitutional. Singleton filed an action in state court claiming he was incompetent to be executed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/02-14224.opn.html">MOBLEY V. HEAD (9/18/2002, NO. 02-14224)<BR></A><BR> Will determine our resolution of the issues Mobley raises in this appeal. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-6062.htm">97-6062 -- SELLERS V. WARD -- 02/04/1998<BR></A><BR> He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death. That the offenses were committed by an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/02-14224.opn.html">MOBLEY V. HEAD (9/18/2002, NO. 02-14224)<BR></A><BR> Will determine our resolution of the issues Mobley raises in this appeal. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/996.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) his death sentence was arbitrarily and capriciously imposed because the sentencing court declined to instruct the jury that the alternative of life imprisonment would ensure that Young served a minimum of thirty years. We agree with the district court that Young is not in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Was working late that evening. Hepler was fatally shot in the back with a .25 caliber pistol. Young was soon apprehended and charged with murder. Of which he was convicted by a jury on May 18. That same jury subsequently found Young to have murdered Hepler in the commission of an armed robbery. That sentence was vacated on appeal because of numerous evidentiary errors infecting the sentencing phase. The question of Young's sentence was presented to a second jury. Young was again sentenced to death based on the jury's finding that Young had murdered Hepler in the course of an armed robbery. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (conferring jurisdiction on the federal courts to consider the claims of those in state custody that their confinement is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BB34D08DAF60F59F88256A070061B49A/$file/9699025.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse the district court's ruling that federal habeas review is barred. Smith and accomplice Joe Leonard Lambright were convicted of sexual assault. Firstdegree murder.1 The principal witness against them at trial was another accomplice. Each witness was brief. Each offered only a gen 1 Because the facts of the offense are set forth in our en banc opinion. The most mitigating factor in the case is the fact that Kathy Foreman wasn't prosecuted at all. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/93-5317.man.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/051043P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (7) monitoring the police radio to determine whether the police were looking for him. Franklin was charged in Missouri state court with capital murder. Lewis opined Franklin suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and was not competent to stand trial. Parwatikar found Franklin was capable of assisting in his defense and competent to stand trial. Louis synagogue shootings because corrections officers at the Marion federal penitentiary were trying to kill him for exposing drug smuggling activities. Franklin testified he believed in reincarnation and was guided by dreams. Franklin insisted his superstitions did not mean he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-1344.wpd.html">NICHOLS V. RENO<BR></A><BR> The district court dismissed the action with prejudice relying on the principle that prosecutorial discretion is presumptively unreviewable by the courts and rejecting Mr. At issue is a section of the Act requiring the government to file a notice that the prosecution intends to seek the death penalty as punishment for the capital crime charged in a pending case. The notice must: (1) stat[e] that the government believes that the circumstances of the offense are such that. If the defendant is convicted. A sentence of death is justified under [the Act] and that the government will seek the sentence of death. If the defendant is convicted. The Manual is a publication which. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/98-6391.htm">98-6391 -- FOWLER V. WARD -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Were murdered in the process of a robbery planned and executed by Petitioner Appellant. Fox were arrested on July 4. Both were convicted of three counts of first degree felony murder. Were thereafter sentenced to death. Fowler's applications for post conviction relief were denied by the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals in 1994 and 1995. <u>See</u> <u>Fowler v. Fowler's trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Fowler was improperly denied an evidentiary hearing. Fowler's death sentence was rendered unreliable by the use of unconstitutional aggravating factors. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/962563P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bruce Kilgore was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. I. Bruce Kilgore was convicted of first degree murder for the death of Marilyn Wilkins. The facts surrounding her kidnapping and murder are laid out in detail in the District Court's opinion. Luckett's belief that Wilkins was responsible for his firing led to the plan to kidnap her. Luckett told her she would have to be killed. She was then stabbed several times. Died after her throat was cut. Kilgore was eventually arrested. Kilgore was convicted of first degree murder. Was denied relief because his motion was untimely and unverified. Or were procedurally barred because Kilgore had provided no sufficient reason to excuse his failure to present them in those earlier proceedings. Which was denied. Once the trial was under way. Just before she was to testify in the penalty phase. The District Court found that the prosecution's conduct was explained by Dickerson's decision. That she was willing to testify. Defense counsel did not have time to depose Dickerson. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/93-5317.man.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A834456359629A2288256E5A00707A7E/$file/9699025.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse the district court's ruling that federal habeas review is barred. Smith and accomplice Joe Leonard Lambright were convicted of sexual assault. Firstdegree murder.1 The principal witness against them at trial was another accomplice. Each witness was brief. Each offered only a gen 1 Because the facts of the offense are set forth in our en banc opinion. The most mitigating factor in the case is the fact that Kathy Foreman wasn't prosecuted at all. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/971936P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective during the sentencing phase of Walls's capital murder trial and vacated his death sentence. We hold that Walls's counsel was not constitutionally deficient. Four stove burners were on. A large typewriter stacked on it and that food was piled behind it. Death was attributed to a combination of blunt injuries. Medical evidence showed that Harmon could have remained alive in the freezer for over an hour before succumbing to either suffocation or hypothermia. Two days after Harmon's body was discovered. Who was twenty years old at the time. Was already in custody for burglary. Blood was everywhere and Harmon was crying on the bedroom floor. He resisted and was beaten again. Who was still conscious and fighting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="411"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0122p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnny Allen were inmates in Range </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="411"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-6178.man.html">BRADLEY V. NAGLE (5/16/2000, NO. 99-6178)<BR></A><BR> His conviction was obtained by use of evidence gained pursuant to an unlawful arrest and an unconstitutional search and seizure. The State violated his due process rights by failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence which was in its possession and which was sought in discovery by Bradley's counsel prior to trial.</P> <P>3. His conviction should be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he committed a murder </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="411"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50361.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I. BACKGROUND Aldrich was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death on August 9. Aldrich was convicted of the murder of Nicholas West. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) states that federal habeas petitioners must demonstrate that the state court's adjudication was either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="411"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug16/02-51339-CV1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We expanded the scope of the COA to include the questions whether Roberts's trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by 1) failing to properly develop evidence confirming or refuting that Roberts was mentally ill. We find that the district court correctly concluded that the state habeas court's denial of Roberts's habeas claims was not unreasonable. Roberts was then charged with the murder of Vasquez. Neither the conviction nor the punishment were contested in any meaningful way. Apparently concerned that Roberts may not have been right of mind. He further stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="411"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984002.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district court erred in failing to find that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to object at sentencing to the enhancement of his offense level for physical restraint of the victim. We hold that the district court correctly determined that Mikalajunas' counsel was not constitutionally ineffective. Largent's plea agreement also stipulated that an enhancement for physical restraint of the victim was appropriate 2 under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. Who is not a party to this appeal. This court agreed that the enhancement was improperly applied. Reasoning that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="411"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-6178.man.html">BRADLEY V. NAGLE (5/16/2000, NO. 99-6178)<BR></A><BR> His conviction was obtained by use of evidence gained pursuant to an unlawful arrest and an unconstitutional search and seizure. The State violated his due process rights by failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence which was in its possession and which was sought in discovery by Bradley's counsel prior to trial.</P> <P>3. His conviction should be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he committed a murder </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08EA6BC1023C3D5688256B6500594E78/$file/0099013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It might have made the difference between life and death. The penalty phase jury was deprived of this critical explanation in determining Caro's culpability for his crime. This is the second time that this case has come before this panel's consideration. The house in which he was raised was surrounded by agricultural fields and did not protect the family from the crop dusters that overflew those fields. Was contaminated by pesticides. He was regularly exposed to organophosphates. He was poisoned by a number of toxic chemicals at the plant. Caro also sustained several head injuries as a child: he was born with a three inch lump on his head due to the use of forceps during his difficult delivery. He was hit by a car later that year. Caro was convicted for the murders of Mary Booher and Mark Hatcher. Teenage cousins who disappeared while on a bicycle ride and were killed by a closerange gunshot to the head. Caro was also convicted of the assaults of Rick Donner and Jack Lucchesi. He would have found Caro to suffer from brain damage due to his exposure to neurotoxicants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0316p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on Harries's behalf in 1984. Habeas proceedings were stayed while Harries pursued postconviction relief in Tennessee state courts. That standard entitles Harries to have the federal habeas court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/03-5038a.htm">03-5038A -- HAIN V. MULLIN -- 03/26/2003<BR></A><BR> At issue is whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/00-5127.htm">00-5127 -- MCCRACKEN V. GIBSON -- 10/10/2001<BR></A><BR> They were overheard saying to each other that they weren't </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/011004p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9612A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 5 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: Appellant Joseph Earl Bates was sentenced to death for the murder of Charles Edwin Jenkins. The victim's ankles and wrists were bound by rope. His legs and arms were hog tied. A rope was tied around his neck. Bates was indicted for kidnapping and murder. The facts surrounding the crime are undisputed. Bates called Eddleman and told Eddleman to meet him at the bridge later that evening because something was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9720.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to determine whether the district court erred in denying Cardwell an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We consider whether his death sentence was rendered constitutionally infirm by trial counsel's failure to develop and present expert testimony regarding Cardwell's mental health. I The facts relating to Cardwell's murder of fifteen year old Anthony Brown have been fully set forth by the Virginia Supreme Court in Cardwell v. The traitorous Poindexter then called Cardwell to advise him that the drugs were strapped to the inside of Brown's leg. Brown was then forced at gunpoint to lie face down on the floor in the back seat of Poindexter's car. Two gunshots were fired. Brown's decomposed body was discovered in the woods approximately two months later. Cardwell was indicted in the Circuit Court for Henrico County. Cardwell was further charged with abduction. Trial was scheduled to commence on July 19. Only to discover that he was on vacation and would not return until August 25. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-5224a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8FAF17909E960ADF88256E6E005A3DB7/$file/0470667.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IN RE: MORRIS 4347 OPINION PER CURIAM: This case is before us on a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Petitioner Bruce Wayne Morris. To attain the relief he or she desires. (2) The petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal. . . . (3) The district court's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. (4) The district court's order is an oft repeated error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0B69F0CC78CB54688256E4D007E5C64/$file/0299009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C5F674270755553B88256E9F00504FC6/$file/0299009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3281.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitioner was sentenced to death and after exhausting his state remedies. Upset that his former girlfriend was planning to return to her ex husband. 01 3282 who were aged two and a half years and 17 months respectively. The theory of the defense was that the mother had shot her children and that he then at her request had killed her. As he was authorized by Indiana's death penalty law to do. Code § 35 50 2 9(d) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/94-6386.man.html">KENNEDY V. HERRING<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kennedy v. Facts<p> <p> Kennedy was convicted for the murder of 86 year old Annie Orr on December 23. Orr was badly beaten. All of which were admitted in evidence. Or to having been in Orr's bedroom when the tape was wrapped around Orr's head.<p> Apart from Kennedy's statements. The state's evidence was circumstantial. Where she was found. Both Kennedy and Grayson are black. Serological analysis did not indicate that any of the semen present was Kennedy's. Although there was too much to have resulted from one ejaculation. Was shown to be Grayson's.<p> Grayson made two statements to the police. Neither of which was introduced at Kennedy's trial. Said that at some time while the two were in the house Kennedy grabbed Orr by the throat. Procedural History<p> <p> Kennedy was tried and convicted separately from Grayson in the circuit court of Shelby County. This court defers to the district court's findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. <i>Anderson v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946386.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Kennedy was convicted for the murder of 86 year old Annie Orr on December 23. Orr was badly beaten. All of which were admitted in evidence. Or to having been in Orr's bedroom when the tape was wrapped around Orr's head. The state's evidence was circumstantial. Where she was found. Both Kennedy and Grayson are black. Serological analysis did not indicate that any of the semen present was Kennedy's. Although there was too much to have resulted from one ejaculation. however. Was shown to be Grayson's. Neither of which was introduced at Kennedy's trial. Said that at some time while the two were in the house Kennedy grabbed Orr by the throat. B. Procedural History Kennedy was tried and convicted separately from Grayson in the circuit court of Shelby County. This court defers to the district court's findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. 1 Anderson v. Are attached as an appendix to this opinion. 1156 (11th Cir.1994). evidence is material for Brady purposes is such a mixed question. As is whether jury instructions impermissibly limited the jury's consideration of mitigating evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/94-6386.man.html">KENNEDY V. HERRING<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kennedy v. Facts<p> <p> Kennedy was convicted for the murder of 86 year old Annie Orr on December 23. Orr was badly beaten. All of which were admitted in evidence. Or to having been in Orr's bedroom when the tape was wrapped around Orr's head.<p> Apart from Kennedy's statements. The state's evidence was circumstantial. Where she was found. Both Kennedy and Grayson are black. Serological analysis did not indicate that any of the semen present was Kennedy's. Although there was too much to have resulted from one ejaculation. Was shown to be Grayson's.<p> Grayson made two statements to the police. Neither of which was introduced at Kennedy's trial. Said that at some time while the two were in the house Kennedy grabbed Orr by the throat. Procedural History<p> <p> Kennedy was tried and convicted separately from Grayson in the circuit court of Shelby County. This court defers to the district court's findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. <i>Anderson v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9812.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Concluding that the majority of Sheppard's claims were procedurally defaulted and that the remaining claims lacked 1 Sheppard named J. Warden of the Mecklenburg Correctional Center where Sheppard was incarcerated. For ease of reference we refer to Taylor as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966752.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was engaged to marry David Roberts. David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Defendant was aware of this absence. The parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Defendant was absent without leave from the Navy and had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. Robin Balarzs died during her ordeal. atrocities were against her corpse. Some of the The defendant realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes. While defendant was attempting to re enter the Balarzs home David Roberts returned. David recalled seeing defendant's vehicle parked near the residence and an alert was dispatched on defendant by radio. At that time it was in connection with a missing person report. Defendant's vehicle was dirty and damaged and defendant had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person. Defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights. Robin's battered body was found. Her parents and David Roberts were advised that she was dead. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966752.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was engaged to marry David Roberts. David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Defendant was aware of this absence. The parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Defendant was absent without leave from the Navy and had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. Some of the atrocities were against her corpse. The defendant realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes. While defendant was attempting to re enter the Balarzs home David Roberts returned. David recalled seeing defendant's vehicle parked near the residence and an alert was dispatched on defendant by radio. At that time it was in connection with a missing person report. Defendant's vehicle was dirty and damaged and defendant had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person. Defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights. Robin's battered body was found. Her parents and David Roberts were advised that she was dead. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0123p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Keenan is an Ohio prisoner who has been sentenced to death for the murder of Anthony Klann. The factual background surrounding the crime is extensively detailed in State v. Is not directly relevant to the issue before us. Keenan was indicted for aggravated burglary along with the kidnaping and aggravated murder of Klann on October 6. Keenan was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death by the trial court. This conviction was reversed. Keenan was again convicted by the jury and sentenced to death. The final judgment of the trial court was again affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals. This date is key to the issue before us. Keenan's second conviction was affirmed on February 25. The controversy in the present case was precipitated by a so called Glenn order issued by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 30. That order provided as follows: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that. A stay is granted for a period of six months. This petition was well within the six month time frame set out by the Ohio Supreme Court in the Glenn order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-7141.wpd.html">WILLIAMSON V. WARD<BR></A><BR> Ronald Keith Williamson was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first degree murder and sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. His petition for state post conviction relief was denied. Asserting that he was convicted and sentenced in violation of the Fifth. Ruling that both the conviction and the sentence of death were constitutionally infirm on numerous grounds. We agree with the district court that Mr Williamson was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel in two regards and that his conviction must therefore be reversed. I The underlying circumstances are as follows. Was found dead in her apartment. Found a bloody fingerprint on the wall of the bedroom in which the body was located. The only latent prints identified were those of the victim and an Ada police detective who investigated the crime. Who was a suspect by that time. Williamson was known to frequent the Club with Dennis Fritz. Fritz was also charged with first degree murder. He was tried separately. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></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)<BR></A><BR> 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.</P> <P> 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-3.gif" ALT="394"></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)<BR></A><BR> 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.</P> <P> 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-3.gif" ALT="392"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9236CC5DE216457088256C09005A60DC/$file/0016752.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wilson was sentenced to death for that offense. Jacqueline Stephens was found naked. While Wilson and Jacqueline were in her bedroom. Wilson and Jacqueline returned to the bedroom where the girls were. While Jacqueline was showering. Pubic hairs and a dried white substance which appeared to be semen were observed on her body. He also was experiencing rhabdomyolysis. Wilson was charged with murder during the commission of attempted rape. Reported that Wilson was competent to stand trial. Killian also reported that Wilson was sane at the time of the offense. It is governed by the noncapital provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1800.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have amended the caption to identify the proper respondent: the warden of the prison where Szabo is confined. The first capital sentence was reversed by the Supreme Court of Illinois because of errors in the hearing. The second was affirmed. Two efforts to obtain collateral relief in the state courts were unavailing. In this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §2254 the district court issued a writ of habeas corpus after concluding that Szabo's lawyer at his second sentencing had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call prison guards as witnesses to inform the jurors of Szabo's good conduct in prison between 1979 (when he was convicted) and 1984 (when the resentencing occurred). The state's only argument on appeal is that the ineffective assistance claim was forfeited in the course of Szabo's initial collateral attack as the Supreme Court of Illinois held in Szabo IV. Then Szabo is entitled to a third sentencing hearing. Because the record did not reveal what testimony the guards would have given. Which was dismissed as barred by the adverse outcome of the first. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0111.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Where Ivey was detained pending trial for murder. We will refer to Respondents as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Frye was sentenced to death on November 15. That decision was upheld on April 8. Were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Are largely drawn from the accounts related by the state courts the Supreme Court of North Carolina and the MAR court. An empty wallet was discovered on the floor of the house. Frye was thereafter tried in the Superior Court of Catawba County for first degree murder and for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The prosecution case against Frye was. Was able to purchase crack cocaine with a thick wad of money. The physical evidence implicating Frye was overwhelming. Frye's blood was found at the murder scene on a mattress. Their plan was to instead focus on avoiding the death penalty by presenting mitigation evidence to the jury during the trial's sentencing phase.2 This plan was frustrated. When it was clear that neither Frye nor his family members would testify. He was given away at a restaurant by his parents to a family of strangers. He was severely beaten and subjected to extreme physical torture by the father of that family. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/91-7185.html">JACKSON V. HERRING<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jackson v. Was convicted in 1981 of murdering a neighbor during an argument. She was sentenced to death. The court held that the jury that convicted Jackson was unconstitutionally comprised because the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude all blacks from service on her jury. The court further held that Jackson overcame her procedural default on this claim by showing that counsel was ineffective for failing to object at trial. The court also held that Jackson was entitled to guilt phase relief on the alternative independent ground of her counsel's ineffectiveness at trial for failure to object to the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes. <i>Id.</i><p> The court thus granted guilt phase habeas relief on both grounds. <i>Id.</i> at 1561 62. The court additionally granted relief on Jackson's claim that her counsel was constitutionally ineffective at sentencing phase for failing to present any mitigating evidence. <i>Id.</i> at 1562. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/91-7185.html">JACKSON V. HERRING<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jackson v. Was convicted in 1981 of murdering a neighbor during an argument. She was sentenced to death. The court held that the jury that convicted Jackson was unconstitutionally comprised because the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude all blacks from service on her jury. The court further held that Jackson overcame her procedural default on this claim by showing that counsel was ineffective for failing to object at trial. The court also held that Jackson was entitled to guilt phase relief on the alternative independent ground of her counsel's ineffectiveness at trial for failure to object to the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes. <i>Id.</i><p> The court thus granted guilt phase habeas relief on both grounds. <i>Id.</i> at 1561 62. The court additionally granted relief on Jackson's claim that her counsel was constitutionally ineffective at sentencing phase for failing to present any mitigating evidence. <i>Id.</i> at 1562. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9910.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Then Warden of Central Prison where Carter is incarcerated. We will refer to Respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6140.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> Petitioner Eric Allen Patton was convicted after a jury trial in the District Court for Oklahoma County of first degree murder and first degree burglary after former conviction of two or more felonies. Patton now argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his first degree murder conviction. Patton is not entitled to relief on any of his claims. The relevant facts are not in dispute and are set forth in the OCCA's opinion on direct appeal. Patton was employed as a brick mason. Stating that he was going to buy electrical boxes at a local hardware store. Patton <hr> was absent from the job site for four hours. He was wearing different clothes and did not have the electrical boxes. Patton was not a suspect in Mrs. Kauer's house and added that the person who committed the murder would have had to have control of the Kauers' dogs. Kauer was involved. He explained that he was changing a tire and the jack had slipped and hit him. Was involved in the crime. He added that he had a lot of information to give them but was protecting someone. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-40795.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:1 Kenneth Eugene Bruce was convicted of capital murder in the state courts of Texas and sentenced to death. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. It argued that Bruce's claim that counsel was ineffective by failing to present evidence to rebut the State's evidence the of claim future was dangerousness procedurally was unexhausted. The State argued that it was reasonable trial strategy for trial counsel to present evidence of rehabilitative potential rather than a questionable history of abuse. He explained that counsel knew that such a request would have been futile. Bruce attached to his response an affidavit that had been filed in another inmate's case as an example of the type of evidence that could have been produced. also claimed. He requests from this court a COA (1) whether his claim based on Penry v. (2001) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-2161.htm">97-2161 -- NEELY V. NEWTON -- 06/24/1998<BR></A><BR> During the ten years she was under the care of her psychiatrist. She was hospitalized five times. The sole issue at Neely's trial was whether she was criminally insane at the time of the offenses. That Neely was not entitled to a jury instruction on the consequences of the NGRI and GBMI verdicts nor was she entitled to question the venire panel concerning those consequences.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/99-13558.man.html">PARKER V. HEAD (3/15/2001, NO. 99-13558)<BR></A><BR> Parker argues that he is entitled to relief because:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/99-13558.man.html">PARKER V. HEAD (3/15/2001, NO. 99-13558)<BR></A><BR> Parker argues that he is entitled to relief because:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/053864P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is once again before us. Xavier Lightfoot and Cornelius Peoples were convicted of aiding and abetting the murder of a federal witness. Lightfoot proceeded to trial and was convicted of conspiracy to commit a bank robbery. Lightfoot was convicted on all counts and the district court1 sentenced him to a term of life in prison. Lightfoot was arrested and charged with one of these robberies (a federally insured credit union in Omaha. While he was being held in a pretrial detention facility. Lightfoot subsequently informed Peoples (who had not yet been charged with participation in the robberies) that he wanted a witness against him murdered.3 Lightfoot suggested that if this witness was not killed. It was eventually agreed that Haskell would kill Ross. Although Ross was biologically male. We will use feminine pronouns when referring to Ross. 3 2 1 Lightfoot did not provide Peoples with the witness's name. 2 with a car and Hunter gave him a firearm. Peoples testified that Lightfoot was responsible for paying these individuals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2000.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Hubert Hartley were tried separately in the Maine Superior Court in 1992 on charges of murdering two men. Each was acquitted. Lombard and Hartley were indicted as co defendants in the federal district court in Maine on federal firearms and other charges arising out of the murders. He was convicted. The resulting Guidelines sentence was a mandatory term of life in prison. Which Maine law would not have required even had defendant been convicted of the murders. Lombard thus received a life sentence based on the federal court's finding that it was more likely than not that Lombard had committed the murders of which he had been acquitted. The sentencing judge was greatly troubled but felt as a matter of law that he had no authority to do otherwise under the Guidelines. Finding that this is a case in which the life 2 2 sentence enhancement is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007665.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) & 2253. I Welch is a citizen of Panama who has been a permanent legal resident in the United States since he was ten years of age. Siblings and son are United States citizens. Welch served in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve for six years and was honorably discharged in 1994. While Welch was in State custody. The DOJ asserted that Welch was deportable pursuant to two subsections of former section 241 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act based on his State felony convictions. Id. § 1251 (a)(2)(C) (authorizing deportation for conviction for unlawfully possessing or carrying firearm).2 Soon after Welch was released from State custody. An immigration judge ordered Welch removed to Panama pursuant to former section 1 The terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016434.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that McCoy's Apprendi claims in his initial § 2255 motion are not jurisdictional and are barred by Teague's nonretroactivity standard. He is procedurally barred from raising them in his initial § 2255 motion. That is. Which were based on the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) applicable to cocaine base offenses involving more than 50 grams. Arguing that his sentence was illegal under Apprendi v. The magistrate judge to whom McCoy's motion was referred recommended that the district court deny McCoy's § 2255 petition on the ground that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50485.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has (continued...) (...continued) determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The standard of review is whether a petitioner </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that such a hearing is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Sanders was convicted of the rape and murder of Jacqueline Lee and was sentenced to death. His convictions and sentence were vacated on appeal. Sanders was again convicted and sentenced to death in 1985. Warden of Central Prison where Sanders is incarcerated. It was instructed that it would be required to consider four issues: (1) whether the State had proven one or more aggravating circumstances. (4) whether the aggravating circumstance or circumstances were of sufficient weight to justify imposition of the death penalty. When one or more of us have questions regarding facts of the case (feel we have not been given enough information) deal with finding the facts or coming to an undecisive [sic] conclusion. The court noted that there was a folded piece of paper on the top of the materials. The foreman indicated that the paper contained another question for the court but that the jury was not finished formulating it. Asked the foreman </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9723.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Boyd met Hartman in November 1978 while the two were employed by the same company. Boyd was not supportive of this 1 Boyd named James B. Where Boyd was then incarcerated. We refer to Respondents as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-1113a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jonathan S. With him on the briefs were Frank W. With him on the brief were David W. BellSouth says s 274 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Are singled 1 The order under challenge is Implementation of the Telecom munications Act of 1996: Telemessaging. BellSouth's challenge to the order is entirely derivative of its constitutional challenge to the statute. Although electronic publishing restrictions have usually amounted to little more than a subplot. In 1982 a consent decree was entered in settlement of the govern ment's 1974 antitrust suit against AT&T. The twenty BOCs eventually named in the 1996 Act were spun off from AT&T and grouped into seven regional Bell operating companies. Of which BellSouth is one.2 The MFJ initially prohibited the BOCs from providing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/91-3528.ma2_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3BBEFED89B7DD25F88256E4A006CDE70/$file/0199018p.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. 2553 2554 BELMONTES v. This conclusion is in error for three reasons. It made special findings that Belmontes was the actual killer and that he had the specific intent that death occur. Simply allowing a defendant to present mitigating evidence to the jury is not enough. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/91-3528.ma2_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-7167.htm">98-7167 -- VAN WOUDENBERG V. GIBSON -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-51067.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. 2 on four issues: (1) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to prepare for and adequately argue the results of the Hare Psychopathy Tests should be excluded. (2) whether the petitioner's due process rights were violated with the admission of the Hare Psychopathy Tests. (3) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to investigate and present evidence of the substantial abuse suffered by the petitioner at the hands of his mother. (4) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorneys failed to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence as well as employ and prepare defense experts and cross examine the State's experts in such a manner as to provide the jury a true and correct picture of the petitioner's future dangerousness. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May24/03-51067.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. 2 on four issues: (1) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to prepare for and adequately argue the results of the Hare Psychopathy Tests should be excluded. (2) whether the petitioner's due process rights were violated with the admission of the Hare Psychopathy Tests. (3) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to investigate and present evidence of the substantial abuse suffered by the petitioner at the hands of his mother. (4) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorneys failed to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence as well as employ and prepare defense experts and cross examine the State's experts in such a manner as to provide the jury a true and correct picture of the petitioner's future dangerousness. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C3B6BAD0BF9201D08825718600786601/$file/0515364.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He is now serving two consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole. (2) he was impaired by medications when he entered his plea and his counsel failed to investigate and inform the court of the same. (3) his plea was not knowing and voluntary. (4) he was denied counsel at a contested hearing in juvenile court. The district court found claim (1) was procedurally barred from review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We find that the state court's denial of that claim was neither contrary to. Little was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault of his daughter and son.2 Little decided to plea guilty. Forcing his son to have sex with his daughter. Little also admitted to committing these acts when his children were under 14. A person convicted of sexual assault was ineligible for probation. At 1887.3 The statutory sentence was life with the possibility of parole in ten years. Little was sentenced to two consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole after ten years. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/005.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 4 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9714.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. All of which were denied. Car jacked Christine 2 Doerfler as she was getting out of her car in a parking lot near her sister's home. Kelvin Drummond later testified that as he lit up a cigarette that his brother Tony had given him the Drummond brothers were standing by their own car he heard a loud bang and saw Doerfler slumped over the steering wheel of her car. Gilliam and the Drummond brothers were involved in an armed robbery of a mini mart. Because Gilliam was bleeding from the head. He was released from the emergency room to the custody of police and placed in a holding cell. Gilliam was tried in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County before Judge Fader. While the trial court indicated it would deny Gilliam's petition because the claim was without merit. Smith claim was not procedurally barred because trial counsel was ineffective. The second amended petition also raised an alleged conflict of interest in that Gilliam's trial counsel was assisted by the Office of Public Defender and his appeal counsel was an employee of that office. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914546.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was indicted in Catoosa County. The following facts were established during the guilt phase of the trial:1 At 10:30 p.m. on November 24. His body was found the next morning in a chert pit. A 1980 Buick Riviera was stolen from the parking lot of a shopping mall in Decatur. The Callahan car was discovered abandoned three miles west of Decatur. A 1982 Buick LeSabre was stolen from a parking lot in Oneida. It was soon spotted in Oneida. A number of guns were recovered from the interior of the stolen automobile. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962412.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 29 the cross reference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002203P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment to the Constitution. Henderson's habeas petition was filed before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). This appeal is subject to pre AEDPA standards of review. We were of course obligated to defer to the factual findings of the state court. The Supreme Court held that mixed questions of fact and law in habeas cases are reviewed de novo. We have reviewed state court interpretations of federal law de novo. 520 U.S. 1257 (1997). 2 We believe that our application of de novo review in pre AEDPA cases is consistent with the view of a majority of justices in Williams v. Federal courts were to exercise </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CB220513C76DEEF882571A9007D3CA7/$file/0473295.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zehatye's Arrival in the United States Zehatye is a native and citizen of Eritrea. Explaining that she was a Jehovah's Witness and feared being </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/049002pen.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges1 The Petition for rehearing filed by the Appellees in the aboveentitled matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all other available circuit judges in regular 1 Judge Greenberg's vote is limited to panel rehearing only. active service. The Petition for Rehearing is hereby DENIED. Judge GREENBERG would have granted panel rehearing. It is so ordered. Michael's motions to dismiss an appeal filed in his name in this federal habeas corpus case and simultaneously vacating the order from which the appeal had been taken and remanding the case for further proceedings.2 The proceedings in this case are unusual in that Michael. In whose name the petition was filed in the district court. He has urged that we should dismiss this appeal just as he had urged that the district court should dismiss the petition even though his attorneys claimed to have filed it in his interest. We have denied his motions to dismiss the appeal. Have entered an order vacating the very district court order that he sought and obtained dismissing the habeas corpus petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-6752.man.html">THOMPSON V. NAGLE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Thompson v. Was engaged to marry David Roberts. David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Defendant was aware of this absence. The parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Cindy noticed no unusual behavior on the part of the defendant.<p> <p> Defendant was absent without leave from the Navy and had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. Some of the atrocities were against her corpse.<p> <p> The defendant realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes. Leaving Robin Balarzs on Green Mountain.<p> <p> While defendant was attempting to re enter the Balarzs home David Roberts returned. David recalled seeing defendant's vehicle parked near the residence and an alert was dispatched on defendant by radio. At that time it was in connection with a missing person report. Defendant's vehicle was dirty and damaged and defendant had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/043868P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Martin Link was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping. Murdering eleven year old Elissa Self Braun and was sentenced to death. Her body was found in a drift pile near the St. Link was arrested following a high speed chase. Which ended when Link crashed the stolen 1986 Ford Tempo he was driving into a utility pole. They were unable to determine conclusively whether Elissa died before her body was placed in the river. Murder included a jar of petroleum jelly found in the stolen car that Link was driving. Genetic testing of blood found within the jar indicated that it was consistent with Elissa's DNA. Sperm found within Elissa's body was determined to match Link's DNA. An expert testified that the probability of both of these genetic samples matching by random chance was less than one in three hundred thousand. Fibers found on the front passenger seat of the car appeared to match the sweater Elissa was wearing when she was kidnapped. Link had grown up in the area where Elissa was kidnapped and had lived near the area where her body was found. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/009005po.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for rehearing is denied. Judges Sloviter and McKee would have granted rehearing en banc for the reasons set forth in the dissent. Ambro and Smith would have granted rehearing en banc. I would have joined her to form a majority. The Rules provide that rehearing en banc is appropriate when a case </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/934057DECA38DBDB8825709D006FF4D6/$file/0415560.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Merced was retried in June 1999 and convicted of attempted premeditated murder of a peace officer involving the personal use of a firearm. I have no problem with that. My question is this: If you are selected on this jury. Is it reasonable for me to assume that you would not follow the law as I dictate it to you? [¶] MR. A habeas petition from a person in custody pursuant to a state court conviction will not be granted unless the decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20125.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:* Michael Wayne Richard (Richard) was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. BACKGROUND Richard was convicted in Texas state court for fatally shooting Marguerite Lucille Dixon in the course of a burglary. Richard was again sentenced to death for capital murder. Each requested COA is denied. Is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). A COA will be granted only if the applicant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-6752.man.html">THOMPSON V. NAGLE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Thompson v. Was engaged to marry David Roberts. David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Defendant was aware of this absence. The parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Cindy noticed no unusual behavior on the part of the defendant.<p> <p> Defendant was absent without leave from the Navy and had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. Some of the atrocities were against her corpse.<p> <p> The defendant realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes. Leaving Robin Balarzs on Green Mountain.<p> <p> While defendant was attempting to re enter the Balarzs home David Roberts returned. David recalled seeing defendant's vehicle parked near the residence and an alert was dispatched on defendant by radio. At that time it was in connection with a missing person report. Defendant's vehicle was dirty and damaged and defendant had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6177.htm">00-6177 -- CARTER V. GIBSON -- 12/18/2001<BR></A><BR> Was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court of felony murder. Manowski was alone. The business' gates were padlocked. The lights in the guard shack were off. The guard shack door was open. The gate to the auto yard was partially open. Manowski was lying on the ground with blood visible. He was not bitter about the firing. There was no discussion. Summers and who was his best friend. Carter were present. Testified the characteristics of the borrowed bolt cutters were consistent with the marks left on the broken lock. Footprints near the Auction were consistent with boots owned by Mr. The characteristics of the entrance wound conclusively indicated that the murder weapon was in direct contact with the victim's head when the fatal shot was fired. <p> Mr. Carter testified that he was not involved in the murder or robbery. Summers was at the murder. Carter is entitled to habeas relief if the decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/00-6442.htm">00-6442 -- KNIGHTON V. MULLIN -- 06/14/2002<BR></A><BR> 3) trial counsel's representation at sentencing was constitutionally ineffective. Accompanying the forty eight year old Knighton was his twenty year old girlfriend. Was a continuing threat to society. Knighton will be entitled to habeas relief only if he can establish that the state courts' resolution of his claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/953932P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reese was convicted of two counts of first degree murder. The details of the crime were set forth by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Are summarized *The HONORABLE DAVID S. Four bodies were discovered at the Marshall Junction Wildlife Reserve shooting range. Reese The officers asked the officers whether he should retain an attorney. could be furnished if he wanted one. he was read his Miranda rights. in the crime. robbery. silent. replied that they could not advise him on the matter but that an attorney Reese replied. Reese talked with the officers for approximately three hours and denied participation Later that evening he was arraigned on a complaint charging him with multiple counts of first degree murder. He was advised of his right to retain an attorney. Right to be A preliminary hearing was set for September 18. assigned an attorney if he could not afford one. An officer then advised Reese that he needed to have an attorney for the preliminary hearing and that that policy required him to fill out a form to determine whether he was financially eligible for the appointment of the public defender. hour. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0094p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B878DF6D6261E8F88256F9C00008543/$file/9999018o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nelson have so recommended. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. 1315 1316 WILLIAMS v. The panel cleared the way for attorneys </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9920.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reed found that the front door was locked. The Inn's cash register was open and empty. Clagett was identified as a suspect in the killings. Responding to a citizen call reporting that a man was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-11094.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Petitioner Gary Lynn Sterling was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. BACKGROUND In February 1989 Sterling was convicted and sentenced to death for the capital offense of murdering John W. His petition is subject to the procedures imposed by AEDPA. Sterling's right to appeal is governed by the COA requirements of § 2253(c). v. A COA will be granted if the petitioner makes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May28/03-11094.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Petitioner Gary Lynn Sterling was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. BACKGROUND In February 1989 Sterling was convicted and sentenced to death for the capital offense of murdering John W. His petition is subject to the procedures imposed by AEDPA. Sterling's right to appeal is governed by the COA requirements of § 2253(c). v. A COA will be granted if the petitioner makes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May19/03-40475-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioner DaRoyce Lamont Mosley ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May17/03-40475-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioner DaRoyce Lamont Mosley ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Broom was sentenced to death in Ohio in 1985 for aggravated murder. Broom's Brady claim is based upon the fact that certain police reports were not made available to Broom's counsel prior to the trial but were later obtained as a result of Ohio Public Records Act requests and as a part of federal habeas discovery. The State argues that Broom's Brady claim is procedurally defaulted due to the fact that the police reports were not used and the Brady claim was not presented during Broom's state postconviction relief proceedings. Bonita Callier ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/023504P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Yohannes Habtemicael was born in January 1965 in Asmara. Asmara is today the capital city of Eritrea. The territory making up Eritrea was part of Ethiopia from 1952 until 1993. Habtemicael was a citizen of Ethiopia and was opposed to the EPLF on ideological grounds. Habtemicael was hired by the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (ERRC) in November 1984 to supervise children's feeding centers funded by the United Nations. In the course of this work he was sent by the ERRC to Barentu. Habtemicael was forced by the EPLF to help with its wounded. He and other able bodied men were also pressed into military service as replacements for fallen revolutionary soldiers. He was told by other captives that any sign of opposition to the EPLF would lead to severe torture. Habtemicael was collecting firewood some distance from the EPLF camp with twenty to thirty other men. Two EPLF soldiers were killed. Habtemicael and his companions were able to escape with their lives. He was told that he would be deported unless he converted from Christianity to Islam. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/023504P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Yohannes Habtemicael was born in January 1965 in Asmara. Asmara is today the capital city of Eritrea. The territory making up Eritrea was part of Ethiopia from 1952 until 1993. Habtemicael was a citizen of Ethiopia and was opposed to the EPLF on ideological grounds. Habtemicael was hired by the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (ERRC) in November 1984 to supervise children's feeding centers funded by the United Nations. In the course of this work he was sent by the ERRC to Barentu. Habtemicael was forced by the EPLF to help with its wounded. He and other able bodied men were also pressed into military service as replacements for fallen revolutionary soldiers. He was told by other captives that any sign of opposition to the EPLF would lead to severe torture. Habtemicael was collecting firewood some distance from the EPLF camp with twenty to thirty other men. Two EPLF soldiers were killed. Habtemicael and his companions were able to escape with their lives. He was told that he would be deported unless he converted from Christianity to Islam. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-6646.man.html">WRIGHT V. HOPPER (3/10/1999, NO. 97-6646)<BR></A><BR> Wright was convicted and sentenced to death for the December 1. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P>A. <EM>Facts</EM></P> <P> The facts are recited verbatim from the opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on direct review of Wright's conviction and sentence.</P> <P> The State presented evidence that around 10:30 on the morning of December 1. It was discovered that Mr. and Mrs. The money was missing from the cash register. Several watches were also missing from the store. Green was not wearing the Seiko watch he had been wearing earlier that morning. Lambert admitted that she had one child by the defendant but denied making the statement that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/97-6646.man.html">WRIGHT V. HOPPER (3/10/1999, NO. 97-6646)<BR></A><BR> Wright was convicted and sentenced to death for the December 1. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P>A. <EM>Facts</EM></P> <P> The facts are recited verbatim from the opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on direct review of Wright's conviction and sentence.</P> <P> The State presented evidence that around 10:30 on the morning of December 1. It was discovered that Mr. and Mrs. The money was missing from the cash register. Several watches were also missing from the store. Green was not wearing the Seiko watch he had been wearing earlier that morning. Lambert admitted that she had one child by the defendant but denied making the statement that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul22/02-11337.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> George Anderson Hopper was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the murder of Rozanne Gailiunas. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth 5TH CIR. Washington3 is applicable. The fourth issue is not an independent issue warranting separate review. This issue centers on the argument that the state courts and the district court have unreasonably applied the relevant legal standards and settled constitutional law in reviewing Hopper's claims. Because this is not truly an issue. This court will not treat Hopper's fourth </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-1177a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Patrick Gallagher and Angel M. With him on the brief was Carol S. Nathanson were on the brief for intervenors in support of respondents. The agreements are designed to bring the facilities into compliance with the permitting and reporting requirements of three environmental statutes. Petitioners argue that the agreements are rules disguised as enforcement actions. We dismiss the petitions for review because exercises of EPA's enforcement discretion are not reviewable by this court. I. Animal feeding operations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062059P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> From which he was twice conditionally released and both times his conditional release was revoked (submitting a positive urine test for marijuana). Feemster's base offense level was 26. Feemster was a criminal history category IV. 1005 (8th Cir. 2006). 2 Feemster's statutory minimum sentence was 120 months' imprisonment. Because Feemster was 26 years old when he committed the offense and was previously convicted of two crimes of violence burglary and robbery the PSR applied the career offender enhancement. Feemster's career offender offense level was 37 and Feemster was a criminal history category VI. Stating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416751.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The car was in gear and still running. Agent Mitchell observed that the driver's side window was shattered and part of the glass was inside the car on the front seat. The windshield was cracked. The passenger window was rolled down. Who was in the driver's seat. Was slumped over Jones. The bullet was lying on the vent. There was also a bullet resting on the driver's door where the glass was shattered. Agent Mitchell stated that there was blood all over the interior of the vehicle. Was at her house when Agent Tolbert arrived. Osborne also told Agent Tolbert that the only contact he had with Seaborne was several days earlier when he was trying to change the title on Jones's motorcycle. Osborne explained that the blood under his cuticles was the result of a hangnail. He also told police that his fingerprints could be on the car in which the victims were found because he had ridden in the car a week earlier when he went to WalMart. Osborne provided police with the clothes he was wearing on the day of the murders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3373A25D317BE31E88256FBD005E542F/$file/9999030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0426p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant was convicted in the state courts of Ohio on two counts of aggravated murder with firearm specification under Ohio Rev. His appeal raises four issues: (1) whether appellant was denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights through the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence against him at trial. (3) whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the prosecution was allowed to introduce into evidence hearsay statements. (4) whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by the cumulative effect of prosecutorial 1 The defendant was found guilty of one count of murder in the death of Charles Sponhaltz with firearm specification and one count of aggravated murder of Steven Vargo with two capital specifications. 2 and 4 involved no unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and that the admission of the hearsay statement in issue 3 was harmless. Steven Vargo and Charles Sponhaltz were found dead on a rural road in Belmont County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/952906P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taking Spillers with them as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/993281P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the ground that Kenley was denied his right to due process in a state post conviction hearing. Kenley cross appeals four of the denied claims for which the COA was granted. I. Kenley was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Missouri state court for killing Ronald Felts in the course of what can only be described as a criminal rampage through southern Missouri and northern Arkansas that began the night of January 3. After the capital murder conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct Complications from an automobile accident have prevented Judge Gibson from reviewing this opinion prior to its being filed. Kenley was separately convicted on counts of robbery. State post conviction relief was denied. Concluding that counsel was constitutionally ineffective during the sentencing phase of Kenley's trial and that the writ therefore should issue. The jury recommended capital punishment and Kenley was again sentenced to death. The Missouri assistant attorney general was concerned that the findings and conclusions would be inadequate for appellate review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0174p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Steve Henley was convicted of two counts of murder and aggravated arson in violation of Tennessee law and was sentenced to death. On the day of the Staffords' death Henley had visited his grandmother and obtained some mechanical parts for some work he was doing. Flatt was with him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20017.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Teenagers Elizabeth Pena and Jennifer Ertman were taking a shortcut home when they encountered an initiation ritual being conducted by members of Houston's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug16/02-21168.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Plata now seeks a COA from us on the following issues: (1) whether he is entitled to habeas relief based on the State's failure to advise him of his right to consular assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and (2) whether the trial court's refusal to allow evidence of his parole eligibility during sentencing violated his constitutional rights to due process. His remaining claims have been waived. A district court shall entertain a § 2254 application filed by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-21168.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Plata now seeks a COA from us on the following issues: (1) whether he is entitled to habeas relief based on the State's failure to advise him of his right to consular assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and (2) whether the trial court's refusal to allow evidence of his parole eligibility during sentencing violated his constitutional rights to due process. His remaining claims have been waived. A district court shall entertain a § 2254 application filed by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4271.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two separate sentencing hearings ended in jury findings that Mahaffey was eligible for the death penalty and that no mitigating circumstances sufficient to preclude the imposition of the ultimate penalty were present. Mahaffey was convicted after his second state trial in 1991 of the murders of Dean and Jo Ellen Pueschel. Several prison terms on the noncapital charges were also imposed. 11 year old Ricky Pueschel was sleeping in the bedroom of his Northside Chicago apartment when he was awakened by a stranger holding him in a headlock. A hand was over his nose and mouth. She was crying. The phone was ringing. Who had come over because he was expecting Jo Ellen to bring Ricky to his house that morning. He was covered with blood. Ricky told him that his parents were dead. His left eye was swollen shut. Were involved in the Pueschel break in. The officers went to the apartment where Reginald Mahaffey was staying. Who was leasing the apartment from his grandmother and renting a room in it to Mahaffey. The officers asked if Mahaffey was in the apartment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/023.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Bramblett was convicted of various charges. Bramblett was sentenced to death on the capital murder conviction and to terms of imprisonment on the remaining convictions. It was later determined that she had been strangled before a flammable liquid was poured on her and ignited. All of whom were killed with gunshots to the head. Were found upstairs. While Theresa and the children were killed no more than two hours before the fire was discovered on August 29. Investigators also determined that the fire was the product of arson. Was arrested and charged with the murders and related offenses in 1996. A. Evidence Against Bramblett Although the case against Bramblett was almost entirely circumstantial. It was no less powerful for being so. Because the weight of this evidence is relevant to several of Bramblett's claims. We will examine the evidence in some detail. Testimony from various witnesses established that Bramblett was at the Hodgeses' home during the weekend of August 27 28. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="332"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/993942P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 whether Hanes's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in preparation for trial.3 We affirm. Hanes admitted to being at the apartment at the time of the This is our characterization of the issue. The right to appeal is governed by the COA requirements found at 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Whether the habeas petition was filed in the district court pre or post AEDPA. Claimed that Sprouse committed the murder while Hanes was waiting outside the front door to discuss a business deal with Barlow and that he did not know what Sprouse used to kill Barlow. The key evidence against Hanes was police testimony that he told police that Energine was used to kill Barlow. 4 and that only after Hanes provided this information were the police able to determine the exact cause of death. Because Hanes's habeas petition was filed in 1995 before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This appeal is subject to pre AEDPA standards of review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="332"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/953864P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I didn't know who it was. Because we were getting ready to rob you. I have been around all day robbing people. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="332"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0140p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Spirko's motion for a new trial was denied. His petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court and his petitions for post conviction relief were unsuccessful. 3) Spirko's trial counsel were ineffective because they did not investigate the alibi claim of Delaney Gibson. Who was indicted with Spirko for the murder. 6) Spirko was denied due process by the prosecution's use of a suggestive photo array and hypnotically refreshed testimony. 8) Spirko was denied due process as a result of several errors during the sentencing phase of the trial. We will not separately address any of Spirko's claims except those relating to the alleged Brady violations. The only Brady claim that Spirko actually argues in his brief is that the state withheld from him evidence that an individual named Delaney Gibson. Who was indicted with Spirko for the murder but escaped and remained a fugitive until well after Spirko had been tried and convicted. Could not have been present when the murder was committed. It is useful to recount the facts relevant to this claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="332"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun24/03-11186-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Proceedings Petitioner George Alarick Jones was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Jones's petition for state post conviction relief was denied. Standard of Review Our standard of review in federal habeas proceedings is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="332"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/74F1F7CA9B09385B88256C22000530B8/$file/0099007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. She was nowhere to be found. The police later arrived and determined that the body was Fornoff's. Hair found on the body was consistent with Beaty's. Bathroom was consistent with Fornoff's. Ferret hair was found on the body. The police also specuIt is worth noting that the owner of the ferret. The jury was not informed of his criminal history. 1 BEATY v. Jark was sure that a body was not visible from in front of the dumpster. Beaty told police that he was with George Lorenz. Beaty was arrested and charged with Fornoff's murder and sexual assault. Highprofile inmates to determine whether they were a threat to themselves. O'Connor and Beaty also discussed a medical problem Beaty was having with his foot and Beaty's family's reaction to his arrest. O'Connor concluded that Beaty was not suffering from any significant psychiatric problems. The jail's psychiatric facility offered a safer place for Beaty because it was isolated from the jail's general population. Beaty was becoming increasingly agitated and depressed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1739.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That Matheney was competent to stand trial and denied his habeas petition. To wit: (1) whether Matheney was competent to stand trial in 1990. (2) whether Matheney's attorneys at his trial were ineffective because they did not demand a competency hearing prior to the trial. (3) whether the state trial court was obligated to hold a competency hearing sua sponte. It will suffice for present No. 03 1739 3 purposes to supply only a brief factual introduction to the relevant issues and refer to prior treatments of the case as necessary. The incompetency claim and the insanity defense were both premised on Matheney's unique understanding of the events of his life. Matheney was in prison at the time of the murder because he had kidnaped his children and battered his exwife. Whom he believed were having an affair. The doctors limited their inquiries into whether Matheney was sane under Indiana law at the time of his crimes. The issue of competency was not raised by defense counsel after the initial motion. 4 No. 03 1739 Competency to stand trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513817.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BY THE COURT: Robert Dale Conklin is an inmate on Georgia's death row. We are constrained by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to dismiss claims in a second or successive petition for habeas corpus if the claims have been presented in a previous application. Section 2244(b)(1) permits Courts of Appeal to entertain claims that have not been presented in a prior application only if the applicant makes a prima facie showing that one of the two following requirements has been satisfied: (A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law. That was previously unavailable. Or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence. No reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. Conklin argues that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052492p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to 15 42 years' imprisonment. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed an 11 count Information against McKeever arising out of his possession and delivery of heroin. (16).1 He was charged with six counts of delivery of a controlled substance. Were made concurrent with one of the six drug delivery counts. They did not have any effect on the actual length of his sentence. The drug delivery counts were made consecutive with each other. The details of the sentencing scheme as set forth in the plea agreement are as follows: Count I (dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities): 1 5 years concurrent with Count V. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the amended act was to be applied prospectively only. Collaterally challenged his sentence under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/993281P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The long history of this case is detailed in our opinion in Kenley v. Kenneth Kenley was convicted of capital murder (among other crimes) as a result of a crime spree through northern Arkansas and southern Missouri in January 1984. He was sentenced to death. His first petition in the district court seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied. Kenley was resentenced. His direct appeal and his postconviction proceedings in the state courts were unavailing. The District Court granted relief on Kenley's second § 2254 petition on his claim that he was denied due process in the state post conviction proceedings (actually </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug03/03-30437-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: In this case we are called upon to consider the impact on the federal Sentencing Guidelines of the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Blakely v. Pineiro was convicted in the district court of violating the federal controlled substances laws. This court assuredly will not be the final arbiter of whether Blakely applies to the federal Guidelines. We have undertaken to discern. The defendant's sentence is affirmed. The jury could choose whether Pineiro was guilty of conspiring to distribute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-7061.htm">00-7061 -- HUMPHREYS V. GIBSON -- 08/21/2001<BR></A><BR> Oklahoma's aggravating factor applicable to individuals who murder while serving a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0198p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Edward Jerome Harbison was convicted of first degree murder. Grand larceny and was sentenced to death. Certificates of appealability were granted to allow consideration of Harbison's claims relating to an alleged Brady violation. The denial of Harbison's petition is AFFIRMED. 1 N