/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 evidence and rules returned 19438 results.

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

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Lawrence Sims died when the speeding car he was driving sailed off a rural road. A jury found the death was accidental and awarded Mrs. The district court refused to admit evidence that would have been inadmissible in state court. He was still quite intoxicated when the couple returned home that evening to an unkempt kitchen. She told the 911 operator that Sims
969 OPINION/ORDER
949 OPINION/ORDER
This case arises out of plaintiff Betsy Sue Johnson's claim that her guidance counselor Wayne Stevens sexually harassed and abused her while she was a high school student in the Elk Lake School District. Claiming that they too were liable under S 1983 for having failed to prevent Stevens's abuse. Johnson asserted that the Administration knew or should have known of Stevens's propensity for sexual abuse. Was deliberately indifferent to this danger. His motion was denied. We agree with the District Court that Johnson has failed to adduce any credible evidence showing that Stevens's supervisors knew or should have known of any danger of abuse at a time at which they could have acted to prevent Johnson's injuries. We will affirm the District Court's order granting summary judgment for the Administration. The principal question arising out of the District Court's denial of the motion for a new trial is whether the Court abused its discretion in refusing to admit the testimony of Karen Radwanski. Which allows for the introduction of evidence of past sexual assaults in civil cases in which the claim for damages is predicated on the defendant's alleged commission of a sexual assault.
921 OPINION/ORDER
Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (
897 OPINION/ORDER
Have been audited by the Internal Revenue Service virtually. Every year since Richard Nixon was President. Kanter was a wellknown and accomplished tax and estate lawyer. Among Kanter's clients was the Pritzker family of Hyatt Corporation fame. Kanter was also an accomplished businessman. Was an expert on the subject of trusts and estate planning. His estate was subsequently substituted as the principal party to this litigation.
886 OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of
879 OPINION/ORDER
Which was after this case was argued. We conclude that the district court's evidentiary rulings were neither an abuse of discretion. We reaffirm the basic principle that an appellate court must afford the district court's gatekeeping determinations
877 OPINION/ORDER
A version of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act which is no longer in effect. Probable cause is no longer a central issue in forfeiture proceedings. 484.00 in cash was the proceeds of. Or was otherwise connected to. The burden shifted to Stanford to establish by a preponderance of the evidence one of two affirmative defenses: either that the money was not the proceeds of illegal drug activity. Or that she was an innocent owner. Stanford herself was her only witness at trial. 484.00 in cash she was carrying was not connected to illegal drug activity. The court was not persuaded. 484.00 Stanford was carrying was substantially connected to an illegal drug transaction. The opinion also explained that Stanford had not thereafter satisfied her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
871 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.
866 OPINION/ORDER
Gutkoski were on brief for appellants. Johnston were on brief for appellees. This is an appeal from a jury verdict of no liability in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff appellant is Richard K. Defendants appellees are Benjamin Mahlab. We address only one of the three issues raised by appellant because it is dispositive. Excerpts from the letters were allowed in evidence. Were the parents of two children: Brian. Klonoski was born and raised in Connecticut. Klonoski was employed by Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital as a cardiologist. She was sent home in the afternoon. Klonoski's death she was delivered of a healthy baby girl. Klonoski was in San Diego at a medical meeting of cardiologists on Saturday. He was notified late Saturday of his wife's admission to the hospital. His wife was comatose and did not recognize him. PRETRIAL DISCOVERY As is usual in a well prepared medical malpractice case. As is also usual. The address to which her letters (the evidence in dispute) were sent. To the extent defendants can more persuasively support their assertion that such a list (or the names of particular people which would otherwise appear on such a list) is protected by the work product doctrine (i.e.
858 OPINION/ORDER
That the provision is unconstitutional. The district court erred in suppressing Dickerson's voluntary confession on the grounds that it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda. Dickerson was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 371 (West Supp. 1998). Although the district court specifically found that Dickerson's confession was voluntary for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. It nevertheless suppressed the confession because it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda.1 In ruling on the admissibility of Dickerson's confession. That
849 UNITED STATES V. ROBERTS

Was indicted on two counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2241. R. Evid. 413 was inapplicable because the indictment against Mr. Roberts was filed prior to the rule's July 9. R. Evid. 413 is inapplicable here. We have reviewed both motions and conclude they are without merit. 3 Initially. Evidence of Similar Crimes in Sexual Assault Cases (a) In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault. Evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible. May be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. (b) In a case in which the Government intends to offer evidence under this rule. Including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered. As is evident from the text of the Rule. R. Evid. 413 was designed to create a
844 OPINION/ORDER
With whom Sulloway & Hollis was on brief for appellants U.S. Sullivan and Rice Dolan & Kershaw were on brief for appellants Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Were on brief for appellees. Chief Judge is whether a United States District Court has the power to adopt a local rule that requires federal prosecutors to obtain judicial approval before they serve a subpoena on an attorney to compel evidence concerning a client. Does not have the power to do so with respect to grand jury subpoenas. It is necessary briefly to review some of the recent history leading to this lawsuit. 21 U.S.C. 848 (1988) (evidence that legal representation was provided by a benefactor. The instances of federal prosecutors subpoenaing attorneys to compel evidence regarding theirclients have. The Assistant Attorney General must find that the information is necessary for an investigation or prosecution. That the subpoena is narrowly drawn. Id. 3 In the first year that the Department of Justice Guidelines were in effect. Of which 278 subpoenas were for grand jury proceedings and 85 for trial.
842 OPINION/ORDER
Who was a member of the panel. This case presents the question of whether a change in a rule governing the adjudication of social security disability benefits claims that is applied as of its effective date to all pending cases has an impermissibly retroactive effect. Have their primary effect on claimants' applications when the claimants appear before the agency to have their claims decided on the merits. The change in the rule is thus not impermissibly retroactive. When Combs' claim was administratively adjudicated. It was not impermissibly retroactive in its effect. The district court correctly concluded that the Agency's determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence. The five steps are as follows: In step one. The SSA identifies claimants who
842 OPINION/ORDER
Habeas petitioners and § 2255 movants have sought to circumvent the AEDPA's restrictions on second round collateral attacks in federal courts. One of the most popular vehicles used in the attempted end runs is a Fed. We entered an order granting hearing or rehearing en banc in three cases in order to answer some common questions that have arisen about the use of Rule 60(b) motions to obtain relief from judgments that denied § 2254 relief (in two of the cases before us). Which was after this case was submitted for decision. That is. 4) was it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the Rule 60(b) motion in his case? In the sequence in which the panel decisions or orders were issued in them. A. A decade ago at a retrial Stephen Mobley was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of a Domino's Pizza employee during an armed robbery. Who had been the district attorney when the prosecution began but no longer was. He told the jury that
840 OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended to replace the line TROTT.
840 OPINION/ORDER
838 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: At 399 F.3d 1022. Substitute the following paragraph: The final question is whether admission of Autumn's statement
836 OPINION/ORDER
Many millions of dollars were spent in order to accomplish the relocation. Louis Convention and Visitors Center (CVC) sued the National Football League and twenty four of its member teams (collectively the NFL) alleging that these expenditures were made necessary by actions of the NFL in violation of antitrust and tort law. The case was tried before a jury for over four weeks before it ended in a judgment in favor of the NFL. The initial goal was to obtain one of the two NFL expansion franchises to be established in 1993. The football stadium was called the Trans World Dome. Its $258 million cost was paid from state and local government funds. The stadium lease was assigned to CVC which became its manager and initially subleased the right to present football in the dome to private parties. The new franchises were awarded to Jacksonville. As a result a written agreement was eventually signed by CVC and the Rams. The proposal for the Rams to move 3 was initially voted down by the owners. It was later approved after the Rams agreed to pay the NFL a $29 million relocation fee.
834 OPINION/ORDER
Whose interview with a detective was admitted as key evidence. The Court definitively held that
834 97-2053 -- U.S. V. GUARDIA -- 02/02/1998

3731 and affirm.

BACKGROUND

The indictment is based upon the complaints of two alleged victims who contend that Dr. Chaperons were present during the examination of two of the four Rule 413 witnesses. Requirements of Rule 413

Rule 413 provides in pertinent part:

In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault. Evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible. May be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.

Fed. A district court must first determine that

831 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Laura Metcoff Klaus. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Grant Crandall and Judith Rivlin. The case will be remanded to the District Court with instructions to re mand the case to the Department of Labor for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background The BLBA is a federally administered law providing bene fits to coal miners who are totally disabled due to pneumoco niosis. Coal mine operators are responsible for paying benefits to miners whose death or total disability due to black lung disease arose out of employment in the mines. 30 U.S.C. s 932. It is caused by the
831 OPINION/ORDER
Solomons argued the cause for appellants.
831 NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION V. DEPT OF MINING

Solomons argued the cause for appellants.
831 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Laura Metcoff Klaus. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Grant Crandall and Judith Rivlin. The case will be remanded to the District Court with instructions to re mand the case to the Department of Labor for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background The BLBA is a federally administered law providing bene fits to coal miners who are totally disabled due to pneumoco niosis. Coal mine operators are responsible for paying benefits to miners whose death or total disability due to black lung disease arose out of employment in the mines. 30 U.S.C. s 932. It is caused by the
829 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
829 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-8.gif" ALT="829"></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-8.gif" ALT="827"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/997520.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 13 the sentence is corrected to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="827"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0383p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There is no case authority holding that a claim of actual innocence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B49D3074CE2937E488256E5A00707C3E/$file/0030193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will protect defendants from propensity evidence so inflammatory as to jeopardize their right to a fair trial. We therefore conclude that Rule 414 is constitutional. We emphasize that Rule 414 is not a blank check entitling the government to introduce whatever evidence it wishes. We conclude that the district judge in this case applied Rule 403 conscientiously and did not abuse his discretion in finding that LeMay's prior acts of child molestation were not so prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value. BACKGROUND Fred LeMay is a twenty four year old Native American and a member of the Fort Peck Indian tribe. LeMay made both children orally copulate with him while their parents were away and threatened to beat them up if they told anyone. LeMay was eventually arrested and charged with child molestation. When LeMay was just twelve years old. Who in the summer of 1989 were two years and eight months old. As in the 1997 incident for which LeMay was charged. Implied that this substance was semen. LeMay was found guilty of rape. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/833BB21E77B4E35D88256AA3005AD73C/$file/0030193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will protect defendants from propensity evidence so inflammatory as to jeopardize their right to a fair trial. We therefore conclude that Rule 414 is constitutional. We emphasize that Rule 414 is not a blank check entitling the government to introduce whatever evidence it wishes. We conclude that the district judge in this case applied Rule 403 conscientiously and did not abuse his discretion in finding that LeMay's prior acts of child molestation were not so prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value. BACKGROUND Fred LeMay is a twenty four year old Native American and a member of the Fort Peck Indian tribe. LeMay made both children orally copulate with him while their parents were away and threatened to beat them up if they told anyone. LeMay was eventually arrested and charged with child molestation. When LeMay was just twelve years old. Who in the summer of 1989 were two years and eight months old. As in the 1997 incident for which LeMay was charged. Implied that this substance was semen. LeMay was found guilty of rape. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-7061.html">DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS V. HERSHEL W. GOBER<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Ronald L. On the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Donald E. Petitioners bring their challenge under 38 U.S.C. § 502.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Motley Page 2 Kentucky law1 and was thus unavailable for cross examination at Fulcher's trial. We find that the admission of Ash's statements did violate Fulcher's clearly established rights and that the error was not harmless. Charlie Bramer was found beaten and stabbed to death in his home in Jefferson County. Fulcher was convicted of burglary. No murder weapon was found. Fulcher's fingerprints were not discovered at the crime scene. He and Fulcher were drinking and watching football at Fulcher's house on the day of the crime. Wright testified that there was nothing he could do to stop Fulcher. Fulcher told Wright that he killed Bramer because Bramer would otherwise have been able to identify them. Patricia Sue Ash was pulled over in a car matching the description of Fulcher's vehicle. Ash could not recall whether Fulcher was present for the discussion. Wright later testified that he was. Where it was recovered by the police. Who had known Fulcher before the murder and who was an inmate with Fulcher. Are carried forward for later trials of pre 1992 crimes by Kentucky Rule of Evidence 107(b) (2005). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="818"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994088.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When Stand was approximately 18. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="818"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024104.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The secondary inspector found additional problems with the visa and determined that it was not genuine. Prince Oyibo was arrested and was charged by criminal complaint with travel document fraud. While the passport was genuine and UNITED STATES v. PRINCE OYIBO 3 unaltered and the visa was genuine when issued. His defense was that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="818"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-14391.man.html">NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="818"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-14391.man.html">NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="816"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AF060E23C7B9A6248825717800774010/$file/0435449.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Was on the briefs. Here we are presented with a will contest involving a member of an Indian tribe in a Department of the Interior probate proceeding where we must decide whether state or federal law of evidence applies. Covington executed a will leaving all her Indian trust allotments to her great grandson. The will listed one of Covington's grandchildren. Though the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="816"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310725.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants herein proceeded to trial and were found guilty. I. This trial clearly demonstrates the inherent danger in a multi defendant conspiracy prosecution ­ that individuals who are not actually members of the group will be swept into the conspiratorial net. Because the government is permitted broad prosecutorial discretion to prove the conspiracy. The likelihood exists that those who associate with conspirators will be found guilty of a crime that they have not intended to commit. This danger is compounded when the grand jury indicts on one theory of the illegal conduct. We have seen such conspiracy prosecutions before. The district court was persuaded to permit the government to proceed upon the assumption that the controlling law of mail fraud would change prior to the end of trial. Was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial. We held that fundamental due process was denied the defendants and vacated their convictions. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.1 The defendants were alleged to have used the United States mails in furtherance of a scheme and artifice to defraud McDonald's Corporation (McDonald's). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="814"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="814"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D03ABDFF7277C99F88256A610081EA0E/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042184p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Paul Forrest appeals the District Court's entry of final judgment and its denial of his motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of appellee Beloit Corporation 2 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0768117AF3AA6FDE88256E5A00707B75/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1084p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was killed when an Asplundh aerial lift in which he was working fractured (Benton Harbor having manufactured the component part of the aerial lift which allegedly failed). Benton Harbor's principal argument on appeal is that the district court erred in permitting Asplundh to adduce lay opinion testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 regarding what appear to be complex technical issues concerning the cause of the metal failure. Was primarily designed to allow lay individuals to express opinions that are in reality only a shorthand statement of fact. To testify about technical matters that might have been thought to lie within the exclusive province of experts. The proponent of technical lay opinion testimony must show that the testimony is based on sufficient experience or specialized knowledge and also show a sufficient connection between such knowledge or experience and the lay opinion such that it may be fairly considered to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/01-1046a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Edward M. With him on the brief was Nathaniel I. Rabinowitz were on the brief for intervenor United Steel. Petitioners contend that MSHA did not have sufficient evidence that DPM presents a risk to miners' health. Petitioners also assert that MSHA unlawfully granted medical evaluation and transfer rights to workers who are required to wear respirators. That MSHA's final implementation timetable was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rules. Diesel exhaust is comprised of both gasses and particulate matter. The agency determined that miners were exposed to very high levels of DPM. MSHA concluded that it was necessary to regulate DPM exposure to protect miners from these risks. The agency determined that there was no reliable way to measure DPM directly for compliance purposes. Total carbon was deemed to be a reliable surrogate because there was evidence in the record that TC makes up approximately 80 85% of DPM. That this is a consistent relationship. Those rules were not challenged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="796"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0269p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted after a trial by jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. That the proof submitted to the jury was not constitutionally sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. Local police officers were dispatched to a Memphis address and found a young woman upset to the point that she was having difficulty speaking. The officers later learned that the young woman's name was Tamica Gordon. The young woman the police met was apparently also the same woman who made the 911 call. The officers inferred that she was describing a semiautomatic weapon. A car pulled up to the address where Gordon and officers were conversing. A woman was driving the car. A man was in the passenger seat. She pointed at the car and told the officers that the man in it was the same man who had pointed a gun at her. No weapons were found. Arnold was cooperative and did not attempt to elude the police or run away. The gun was in a clear plastic bag when the police located it. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="796"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/00-6072.htm">00-6072 -- BLACK V. M & W GEAR CO. -- 11/07/2001<BR></A><BR> Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="794"></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-7.gif" ALT="794"></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-7.gif" ALT="792"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991378.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pacific Eternity) that was undergoing repairs and was soon scheduled to leave United States waters. Asserted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/95-6234.man.html">CITY OF TUSCALOOSA V. HARCROS CHEMICALS, INC. (10/23/1998, NO. 95-6234)<BR></A><BR> Remand for further proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The plaintiffs and plaintiffs intervenors in this case are thirty nine Alabama municipal entities that purchase repackaged chlorine for the treatment of drinking water. Repackaged chlorine is liquid chlorine that has been pressurized and stored in containers for delivery to. The five defendant corporations are chemical companies that repackage or distribute chlorine in Alabama.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/99-8053.man.html">ALLISON V. MCGHAN MED. CORP. (8/18/1999, NO. 99-8053)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the district court's <EM>Daubert</EM> rulings were correct. The left implant was replaced in December 1980 by a model also manufactured by 3M/McGhan. (Appellant's Br. at 3.)</P> <P> In 1986 Allison was diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis (diffuse infiltration of the thyroid gland with white blood cells. Allison was diagnosed with Type I diabetes mellitus.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/995126.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. They were sued on a $6 million bank loan made to an entity named Kiddie Craft. Each thus was liable for the amount of the subsequent settlement of the lawsuit $3.8 million. Scrimshaw was operating at a net loss. Rishty was a public insurance adjuster in New York City who had conspired with various clients in over 200 fraudulent insurance schemes in the past. Which was Scrimshaw's insurer. Marchello assured Rishty that Chubb would assign him to handle the future Scrimshaw claim. 3 The basis of the fraudulent insurance claim was a staged flooding in Scrimshaw's warehouse caused by a broken sprinkler head. Isaac was in his office with Tom Yaccarino. Neil told them the agreed upon cover story that he had accidentally broken the sprinkler head while moving a heavy box that was piled on top of other boxes in the storage area. Appellants were unable to provide invoices for certain merchandise valued at approximately $500. 000 that was listed in their claim. Neil informed the accountants that they were having trouble locating these invoices because they were old and stored away in a trailer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/95-6234.man.html">CITY OF TUSCALOOSA V. HARCROS CHEMICALS, INC. (10/23/1998, NO. 95-6234)<BR></A><BR> Remand for further proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The plaintiffs and plaintiffs intervenors in this case are thirty nine Alabama municipal entities that purchase repackaged chlorine for the treatment of drinking water. Repackaged chlorine is liquid chlorine that has been pressurized and stored in containers for delivery to. The five defendant corporations are chemical companies that repackage or distribute chlorine in Alabama.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053772p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 This appeal requires us to consider the admissibility of what is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/99-8053.man.html">ALLISON V. MCGHAN MED. CORP. (8/18/1999, NO. 99-8053)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the district court's <EM>Daubert</EM> rulings were correct. The left implant was replaced in December 1980 by a model also manufactured by 3M/McGhan. (Appellant's Br. at 3.)</P> <P> In 1986 Allison was diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis (diffuse infiltration of the thyroid gland with white blood cells. Allison was diagnosed with Type I diabetes mellitus.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></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-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-1287.htm">97-1287 -- U.S. V. MCVEIGH -- 09/08/1998<BR></A><BR> McVeigh ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/528EFDF7AF7153CD88256DAD0066BEE3/$file/0071398.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or was reckless in not recognizing. Were false. We further hold that the SEC's decision was not arbitrary. That the sanctions imposed on Ponce by the SEC were not an abuse of discretion. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION 14441 I Ponce was a Certified Public Accountant1 and served as AAC's2 independent auditor from 1988 to 1991. A hearing on the matter was held before an Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="788"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-3158a.html">USA V. ROSTENKOWSKIDANIEL<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="788"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C67B3DB1B103443E8825731A008288C5/$file/0510575.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The government's Motion to Change Wording of Opinion is GRANTED. 2007 is hereby amended as follows: 1) On slip op. 4792. The final two sentences of the paragraph beginning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="788"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0106p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (4) the district court erred in denying the motion for new trial because the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. All three CN IC employees are responsible for the safety of the crew and passersby. While the subsequent events are in dispute. It is uncontroverted that Rush. The matter proceeded to trial whereby the parties presented widely divergent References to the trial transcript will hereinafter be cited as ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1145.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nelson</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Bauser</SPAN> were on brief. The petitioners and petitioner intervenors are public interest groups. Supported by the Attorneys General of five states (who have filed a helpful amicus brief). We have studied the complex statutory and regulatory framework and scrutinized the plenitudinous administrative record. BACKGROUND</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="781"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFC05CC73FD5AC0B88256B6D005FDCC3/$file/0035732.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Idaho state prisoner William Gray was convicted of killing his wife. Because we find that the Idaho trial court's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="781"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/967623.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident. The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order. The critical issue there is the trial plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that they were exposed to doses of radiation sufficient to cause their neoplasms. Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="781"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0181p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="779"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/044751D9E25F695A882572CE004BE57F/$file/0510575.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sine's role in the scheme was to reassure individuals that they were lending money to a legitimate real estate investor and that millions of dollars in legitimate collateral protected them in case of default. Once the scheme started to unravel and it became clear that the collateral was worthless. Claiming that it was as much of a surprise to him as to anybody else that the collateral was illusory. Such use of the judge's statements was highly improper. He convinced victims that they were lending money to fund various real estate projects conducted by Alpha Funding Group. Of which Panthaky was president. Sine was the trustee of Alpha Trust. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="777"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0399p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joseph Lee Seymour was charged in a two count indictment with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and with aggravated sexual abuse of an adult by force. Are mother and daughter. D.H. is the wife of one of Seymour's brothers. Who was then ten years old. Seymour was charged in August of 2004 with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. The government argued that this evidence was admissible under Rule 413 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Which permits the introduction of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="777"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0422a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joseph Lee Seymour was charged in a two count indictment with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and with aggravated sexual abuse of an adult by force. Are mother and daughter. D.H. is the wife of one of Seymour's brothers. Who was then ten years old. Seymour was charged in August of 2004 with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. The government argued that this evidence was admissible under Rule 413 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Which permits the introduction of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1281.html">CONOCO, INC. V. DEPT. OF ENERGY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1425.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Greenfield were on brief. Littman & Peppard was on brief. Lester Olsen was convicted of the first degree murder of Harold Fernandes and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. A ruling that was based on the investigating police officers' failure to disclose an audiotaped interview with the prosecution's chief witness. Olsen was released from prison on bail pending the new trial. Olsen pled nolo contendere to a charge of manslaughter and was convicted of that crime. Although the state judge questioned whether this sentence was sufficiently severe. Olsen was sentenced to the time he had already served for the original conviction. The balance of the ten to fifteen year manslaughter sentence was suspended. He was placed on probation for five years. His complaint was primarily focused on obtaining damages for his imprisonment. Evidence of injury arising from Olsen's incarceration was excluded. Evidence of other damages associated with his murder trial and conviction was permitted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-2285.htm">96-2285 -- U.S. V. ENJADY -- 03/25/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/92-3133b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the joint and sup plemental briefs were A.J. With him on the brief were Eric H. Attorney at the time the supplemental briefs were filed. Circuit Judge: The principal question in these cases is whether a criminal defendant may. A divided court answered the question this way: whenever there is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-3032a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. While the defendant's direct appeal was pending. He further asserts that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to seek a judicial hearing to enforce the terms of a plea agreement signed by appellant and the United States Attorney's Office. A confidential informant notified the Metropolitan Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4211_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawpetoss was convicted of eight counts of commission or attempted commission of sexual offenses. Hawpetoss is a Native American who lives on the Menomenee Indian Reservation in Wisconsin. He was charged. Was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) provides: Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses. Who was eight years old at the time. Or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. Or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging). Or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison. Unless the death penalty is imposed. Or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/96-2251.htm">96-2251 -- U.S. V. CASTILLO -- 04/06/1998<BR></A><BR> Contending (1) that Rule 414 was not effective at the time of his trial. (3) that the Rule 414 evidence should have been excluded because of its great prejudicial value. We hold that Rule 414 was effective at the time of Mr. He and his wife have five children. The district court allowed N.C. to testify not only to the three acts of abuse against her with which the defendant was charged. Also to a fourth act of sexual abuse against her that was not charged in the indictment. We address whether Rule 414 was effective at the time of Mr. In pertinent part: <p> In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of child molestation. Evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation is admissible. May be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. <p> Fed. We review de novo the district court's conclusion that Rule 414 is constitutional. <u>See</u> <u>United States v. Due Process</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>We first consider whether Federal Rule of Evidence 414 violates the due process rights of a criminal defendant under the Fifth Amendment.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-2285.htm">96-2285 -- U.S. V. ENJADY -- 01/20/1998<BR></A><BR> Rule 413 is unconstitutional. If the rule is constitutional. The district court should have excluded the evidence as unduly prejudicial under Fed. Defendant were both enrolled members of the Mescalero Apache Indian Tribe and the alleged rape occurred on the reservation. She reported the incident and medical personnel administered a rape kit. <p> Defendant was later arrested on other charges and interviewed by criminal investigator Mark Chino. Argued it was consensual. <p> The government sought the court's permission to introduce testimony from witness B that defendant had raped her approximately two years earlier. The district court ruled that the testimony of the prior rape was relevant and admissible under Rule 413. Defendant was indicted in May 1995 and tried in June 1996. The district court concluded that defendant's trial was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0215p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We repeat below a helpful overview of the Medicare program to set the scene before exploring the procedural and substantive facts of this case.1 The Medicare program is codified in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. These insurance carriers are called Fiscal Intermediaries ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1723a.html">TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="768"></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="768"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1779a.html">FREEMAN ENG ASSOC V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/981113.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kelt was to repay Horizon with interest. Horizon was to receive half of Kelt's profits. Deglau was to get an annual salary of $80. Kelt's stock and all of its assets were pledged as security for this loan. The Loan Agreement was negotiated by Deglau's lawyer. The terms of the loan agreement are disputed. Will be discussed below. 000 line of credit if it was personally guaranteed by Deglau and his wife. The note itself was signed in blank. It was eventually filled out to reflect a $200. He was personally liable for the additional $100. He tells us he was assured verbally that the Guaranty would apply only to the $200. Horizon was experiencing financial turmoil. Was 1. Citations to the Appellant's Appendix will be indicated by R.[page]. 3 eventually taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and later by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).2 In 1990. The FDIC advised Deglau that he was in default on the 1985 Kelt note for about $1.3 million. A familiarity with judgment by confession as undertaken in Pennsylvania is essential to the decision of this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was indicted on January 20. Claiming they are unsupported and politically motivated. His trial was scheduled to begin in October 2006. We have stayed it pending disposition of three applications that are before us: (1) Wecht's challenge of Local Rule 83.1 of the U.S. Wecht was indicted on January 20. This feud was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3DC0E87BDDA3BAB88256EB300548E33/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung. Another exceedingly peculiar and unique wound inflicted during this attack was a cut made by the attacker through which he then removed her sexual organs. For it was done in a manner that is difficult to accomplish. The evidence pointing to Leavitt was powerful. If circumstantial he was not caught redhanded. The victim's body was not found for several days which caused the destruction of some evidentiary markers. Who thought that Leavitt was the culprit. Another strange aspect of the case was that a person supposedly named Mike Jenkins also called the police a couple of times during that period and showed knowledge of details of the crime that only the killer himself would know. Mike Jenkins was not known in Blackfoot and was not heard of thereafter. Is 7780 LEAVITT v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C84F396001F211588256F080056BF3B/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is reported as Leavitt v. We will put page references to the published opinion in parenthesis. 1 LEAVITT v. As is well known by now. The Supreme Court determined that a capital sentencing scheme wherein the judge decides aggravating facts without a jury is unconstitutional. Leavitt asserts that Ring is retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review. Substitute the following in its place: CONCLUSION Leavitt is not entitled to habeas corpus relief as far as his conviction and the sentencing issues disposed of in this opinion are concerned. He is entitled to have the district court consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his second sentencing hearing. Arave's petition for rehearing is DENIED. Leavitt's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is also DENIED. Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A658DE7863C879FC88256DC5007C804A/$file/0156491.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Judges Canby and Berzon have voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing in part and to deny it in part. The petition of Nycomed for panel rehearing is granted in part and denied in part. Are withdrawn and the attached majority and dissenting opinions are ordered filed herewith. 15222 FREUND v. The attached opinion have been circulated to the full court. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. We affirm the judgment for compensatory damages and reverse the order overturning the punitive damages as a matter of law.2 We remand for the district court to The defendants against whom judgment was entered were Nycomed Amersham. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0046p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robin Rochelle Lucas was indicted by a grand jury for knowingly and intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing cocaine. Lucas was convicted by a jury as charged in the indictment and was subsequently sentenced to 121 months in prison. When the defense's theory was that the drugs were Presley's and not Lucas's. Lucas also appeals her sentence and claims that the district court abused its discretion in not finding that her prior rape by prison guards and her charitable work for human rights organizations such as Amnesty International were grounds for a downward departure. I Robin Rochelle Lucas was arrested on May 9. She was living in California with her grandmother. Lucas testified at her trial that she was on vacation with two friends. Lucas says she saw a sign for Knoxville and Chattanooga (which are over 200 miles away). Thinking that Knoxville was only a few minutes away from Nashville. Which she claims she thought was in Knoxville. Was actually still in Nashville. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110215.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> KAHN CLERK Petitioner Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Leslie English by the Georgia state courts in 1987. We conclude that Crawford is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence. Facts Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted for the murder of his 29 month old niece. The defendant was married to. The defendant was intoxicated and. During this time the victim was in the care of Mrs. He stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-6397.htm">98-6397 -- SMALLWOOD V. GIBSON -- 09/10/1999<BR></A><BR> Smallwood was convicted of First Degree Murder and Third Degree Arson in May of 1993. (3) petitioner's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the trial. (5) the jury instructions given by the trial court were unconstitutional because they permitted the jury to ignore mitigating evidence. (6) the jury instructions were constitutionally impermissible because they failed to state that. (7) the trial court violated petitioner's constitutional rights by failing to instruct the jury that there is a presumption of life in death penalty cases. (8) the jury instructions were unconstitutional because they did not properly limit the jury's consideration of sympathy to the defendant. Cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Korula T. Of counsel on the brief were Joseph Lin. Of counsel was C.J. With him on the brief were James A. BACKGROUND I 02 Micro is the holder of U.S. The principal use of the circuit is to convert the direct current supplied by laptop batteries into the alternating current required for the cold cathode fluorescent lamps ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200305/02-3003a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981887.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is economically impractical to duplicate the incumbent LEC's local network infrastructure. If negotiations fail it is hard to see how they would not either party may petition the state utility commission to arbitrate open issues.See id. § 252(b).1 The terms imposed by the state commission in arbitration must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3669.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. is a former Milwaukee police officer who was arrested for physically abusing a child. Though he was not prosecuted. Anderer was terminated following an internal affairs investigation into this incident. Finding that probable cause existed at the time Anderer was arrested and that the 2 No. 02 3669 speech at issue was not protected by the First Amendment. After the juveniles were handcuffed. While they were being escorted to the patrol cars. One 12 year old boy (whom we will call JR) started shouting that one of the officers who was escorting him to the car. Was touching him on the buttocks and trying to rape him. Three of the juveniles were then transported to the police station by Officer Cook and his partner Officer Jeffrey Logan. JR was placed in a patrol car and driven to the station by Anderer. Several officers noticed that JR was bleeding from the nose and mouth and had blood on his clothing. Mary Hoerig and Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joel Kurtzberg. Reid Alan Cox was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Individual Freedom in support of appellants. Jr. were on the brief for amici curiae Magazine Publishers of America. Is protected by a reporter's privilege arising from the First Amendment. We agree with the District Court that there is no First Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought. It is not absolute. We further conclude that other assignments of error raised by appellants are without merit. In which he claimed to have been sent to Niger in 2002 by the Central Intelligence Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
757 PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)

The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. (
757 OPINION/ORDER
FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by
757 PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)

The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. (
755 OPINION/ORDER
Line 25 the reference to
753 OPINION/ORDER
Three of the issues are of first impression to this Court. The first issue is whether worldwide service of process authorized under Section 12 of the Clayton Act. Upon foreign corporations is independent of the specific venue provision contained in that statute. The second issue is whether a federal court's personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in antitrust litigation may be predicated on the foreign corporation's contacts with the United States as a whole (national contacts analysis). The final issue is whether jurisdictional discovery from foreign nationals may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without first resorting to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention or Convention). 23 U.S.T. 2555. Those actions were transferred to. Are: PPG Industries. Have stipulated to certification of a national class consisting of all direct purchasers of automotive refinishes from the defendants. The appellants submitted affidavits stating that they did not have presence in the state of Pennsylvania and never sold any automotive refinish paint to any customers in Pennsylvania.
753 COLLIER V. TURPIN (9/21/1998, NO. 95-8682)

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.
753 UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></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-7.gif" ALT="753"></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-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/981636.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before this court on an appeal from an order denying defendant ARCO Chemical Company's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></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-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2126.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was convicted of sexually abusing a minor within Indian country. He could have impeached L.V. at trial. The result of his trial would have been different. Velarde would have been able to subpoena certain otherwise uncooperative witnesses and determine the nature of L.V.'s false accusations. If that is what they were. Establish whether the government was aware of them. Mel Velarde was convicted by a jury of sexually abusing a minor within Indian country in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1153. Is the daughter of the woman Mr. <hr> Velarde was dating at that time. There was no corroborating medical evidence. Velarde was convicted almost entirely on L.V.'s testimony. Velarde took her from the top bunk of her brothers' bed (her younger brother was also sleeping in the top bunk. Her older brother was sleeping in the lower bunk) into the hallway and held her mouth shut while he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953004.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep20/01-60490.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Federal Bureau of Investigation. contend that their convictions are the result of a corrupt Tunica 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. Butler was given marked money and wore a Lieutenant Hudson testified that Bowens' voice is heard on the audiotape telling Butler that his police source said Butler was 2 not a good customer. you. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1457p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal offers the en banc court the opportunity to attempt to clarify the quantum and nature of evidence that will permit a jury to find that an employer engaged in impermissible employment discrimination. Who had been an employee of the Hotel du Pont since 1979 and was at the time her employment ceased one of the Head Captains of the hotel's Green Room. That she was not qualified for the position of Manager of Restaurants and that she had not applied for the position. Were pretexts for discrimination. The court concluded that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0998p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This matter is an appeal and a cross appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1113p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This asbestos related personal injury action was tried to a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We are called on to determine whether: (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of two jurors who allegedly evidenced bias against the defense. (2) the defendant has waived any claim that there was a violation of its statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges. (3) a denial or impairment of the exercise of peremptory challenges occurs if the defendant uses one or more challenges to remove jurors who should have been removed for cause. (4) a per se reversal is the appropriate remedy for such impairment or whether the defendant must also make a showing of prejudice. We are called upon to determine whether the district court committed an error of law by: (1) allowing plaintiff to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of an out of court expert witness from an unrelated state court action. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and liability.[fn1] Since it is likely that the hearsay issues and the issue of delay damages may arise again during the new trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1893.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was seized from Corey's Maine residence by officers of the Somerset County Sheriff's Department. Was indicted for possessing a firearm which had traveled in interstate commerce. <U>See</U> 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g). Hence necessarily traveled across state lines. <U>Id.</U> As Agent Cooney's testimony is pivotal to the appeal. Cooney stated that the principal Smith and Wesson manufacturing plant is situated in Massachusetts. That other Smith and Wesson plants are located in Ohio and Maine. He stated that he had been able to determine from ATF </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1568.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> King with whom Fenn & King was on brief for appellant. King with whom Fenn & King was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for whom Richard S. Was on brief for appellee. appellee. Levasseur and Manning were fugitives. Which is the principal focus of the present appeal as well.* II II DISCUSSION DISCUSSION Petitioner challenges the dismissal of the section 2255 petition without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner was required to demon strate to the district court. An evidentiary hearing is not required where the section 2255 petition. The record evidence </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/95-4445.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. NOVATON (10/30/2001, NO. 95-4445)<BR></A><BR> Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogram sized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/95-4445.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. NOVATON (10/30/2001, NO. 95-4445)<BR></A><BR> Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogram sized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </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/445295BA5B92D42088256D0F007B0B2F/$file/0156491.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: A jury in district court found that defendant Nycomed Amersham1 had wrongfully terminated the employment of plaintiff 1 The defendants against whom judgment was entered were Nycomed Amersham. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954445.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogramsized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami. Investigators discovered that Appellant Mercedes Novaton was the record owner of the duplex. The nine appellants have raised a plethora of issues related to their convictions and sentences. We have carefully considered all of their arguments. We summarily reject all of those arguments that are not mentioned in this opinion. 3 1 and that she lived there with her husband Appellant Francisco Novaton. The agents investigating the Novaton residence obtained authority to intercept wire communications on various telephones used by people who were suspected of participating in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. 000 of which were transcribed). The investigators learned that several co conspirators were engaged in the distribution of cocaine through various houses in Miami. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3421_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While he was enrolled at Franklin Middle School in Champaign. He was repeatedly molested by the school's Dean of Students. That Champaign Community Schools Unit District No. 4 and various school officials were deliberately indifferent to the abuse. Because it was relevant to his claim for compensatory damages. We conclude the Does are entitled to a new trial for three reasons. I. BACKGROUND John Doe first enrolled at Franklin Middle School in 1993 as a sixth grader.1 The parties do not dispute that Doe was 1 John Doe and the other putative victims are all African Americans. Smith is Caucasian. Underprivileged African American boys because they were particularly vulnerable and less likely (continued...). No. 04 3421 3 a troubled child whose classroom conduct was disruptive at times. Smith would often seek out Doe on the playground and order him to Smith's office because he was a troublemaker.2 At trial. Smith invited Doe to have breakfast with him. Was the beginning of the molestation. Sexual grooming is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2091.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Was robbed at gunpoint. Meserve was charged with the robbery and the associated firearms offenses.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/993773.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by defendant Ellwood Group. The most important issue involves the question whether the joint venture agreement was ambiguous as a matter of law as to whether Ellwood could properly claim rebates for its sales to third parties of ingots pr oduced by the Ellwood Uddeholm Steel Company (EUS). Or whether Ellwood was limited to rebates for sales by EUS to Ellwood for Ellwood's own use. We conclude that the District Court was correct in finding a contractual ambiguity. That it erred in instructing the jury that Ellwood had the burden of establishing the meaning of the disputed terms in the agreement because of the fiduciary relationship between the parties that was cr eated by the joint venture. Other important issues include: (1) whether Uddeholm's breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets claims were covered and thus precluded by its breach of contract claim. (2) whether Ellwood's potential liability on the civil conspiracy claim was for eclosed because the jury found no other conspirator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/032081P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was fifteen years old. Myron was thirteen years old and had been diagnosed with a cognitive disorder. Myron was first diagnosed and treated for depression and for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in April of 1998. Myron continues to have episodes of severe bouts of depression. Myron was hospitalized for two months after threatening to commit suicide. Myron was taking two anti depressant medications. He was hospitalized for one month after overdosing on four kinds of prescription medications. Myron was hospitalized a third time after playing Russian Roulette with a gun. Myron struggles but is of average intelligence and performs competently at school. These outbursts are oftentimes violent and have resulted in serious disciplinary actions at school. Was immature. Was easily intimidated. Was disobedient. His mother reported that he prefers to socialize with children who are significantly younger than himself. When he is experiencing a bout of depression. Standard of Review We must affirm the ALJ's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2001). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/993773.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by defendant Ellwood Group. The most important issue involves the question whether the joint venture agreement was ambiguous as a matter of law as to whether Ellwood could properly claim rebates for its sales to third parties of ingots pr oduced by the Ellwood Uddeholm Steel Company (EUS). Or whether Ellwood was limited to rebates for sales by EUS to Ellwood for Ellwood's own use. We conclude that the District Court was correct in finding a contractual ambiguity. That it erred in instructing the jury that Ellwood had the burden of establishing the meaning of the disputed terms in the agreement because of the fiduciary relationship between the parties that was cr eated by the joint venture. Other important issues include: (1) whether Uddeholm's breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets claims were covered and thus precluded by its breach of contract claim. (2) whether Ellwood's potential liability on the civil conspiracy claim was for eclosed because the jury found no other conspirator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992513.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Circuit Judge: Appellant Sharin Brown was severely injured when she lost control of her 1991 Ford Ranger pickup truck and it rolled several times. Code Ann. § 46.2 1094(D) when it permitted Ford to introduce evidence that she was not wearing her seat belt at the time of the accident. I. Brown was driving her 1991 Ford Ranger pickup truck on a stretch of road in Suffolk. Brown was ejected and sustained severe injuries. Alleging that Ford was liable for her injuries. Was designed negligently. Whether the defect alleged by the plaintiff was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff or whether any failure to use a seat belt was the proximate cause of the injury. Which was overruled by the district court. Brown was the first to raise the issue of seat belt use. Elicited testimony from both the investigating officer and an expert witness that Brown was unrestrained at the time of the accident in question. Brown had been belted in her seat she would not have been injured or ejected. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF3277920C4FAC4188256D8A005C375C/$file/0130200.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The threat underlying Defendant's conviction was expressed to a telephone operator at a Kaiser Permanente clinic. The threats as to which Defendant was acquitted were communicated. Because the error was harmless. He was suffering from irritability. Including those who participated in various legal proceedings in which Defendant was involved. Eventually Defendant was diagnosed with bipolar type II disorder. She would have a duty to disclose the threats to the intended victims so that they could protect themselves. Dieter to tell her that he had argued with his wife and was extremely upset. Fearing that Defendant was losing his support system. Which Defendant complained was not protecting him adequately) and said that. If a lien against his house was not dropped by the time he met with his lawyer on November 2. Get in his vehicle and have himself some justice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9D33A3EF8BC665C88256D95005BFD72/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> STEWART 12713 I It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5DA6C8399C93047688257145006F0187/$file/0410632.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Detective Michael Castaneda was acting undercover on the Internet as a 14 year old girl using the screen name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The centerpiece of the government's case in chief was its evidence implicating the remaining eleven defendants in the conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine alleged in Count 2. The overall thrust of the hundreds of hours of witness testimony was that Williams and Casado. Their mother Susan Hall Gibson 2 Lenard Brown was Leonard Brown's twin brother. We refer to all defendants by their last names except for the Brown twins and Malcolm and Bernard Shaw. 4 were all friends of Williams from the Miami neighborhoods of Carol City. Baptiste was Casado's close friend and business partner. Charlton Darces was a Port of Miami longshoreman who. The government's case was also replete with evidence. The overt acts cited are as follows: 1. To an individual who was later arrested in St. A portion of which was later seized by authorities. Approximately two and one half kilograms of crack which remained from this crack were seized by law enforcement authorities in West Palm Beach. A portion of which was later seized by law enforcement authorities on March 6. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1018p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This asbestos related personal injury action was tried to a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We are called on to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by denying defendant's challenge for cause of two jurors who allegedly evidenced bias against the defense. We are called upon to determine whether the district court committed an error of law by: (1) allowing plaintiff to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of an out of court expert witness from an unrelated state court action. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and liability.[fn1] Since it is likely that the hearsay issues and the issue of delay damages may arise again during the new trial. Did not err in ruling that delay damages would be permitted when delay was caused by a judicial stay for which the plaintiff was not responsible. Including Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8F2AEBE9764448588256E300069B8B0/$file/0170724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We write en banc to clarify that the acceptance of a criminal defendant's guilty plea is a judicial act distinct from the acceptance of the plea agreement itself. The conditions under which the plea may be withdrawn are governed exclusively by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 Where a district court accepts a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court's choice to do so here was error. As is commonly the case. Although most changes were intended to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/022460p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The basic law underlying Dia's substantive claims is clear. He is unable or unwilling to return to his home country </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/004342.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inasmuch as we agree that the waiver colloquy was not sufficient to insure a proper waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We will reverse and remand for a new trial. FBI agents received a tip from a confidential informant that Larry Brown and Walter Baynes were planning to rob a bank the next day. That robbery was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Part II (Adverse Employment Action) of the majority opinion was joined by BOGGS. Part IV (Punitive Damages) was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by BOGGS. We decide that a thirty seven day suspension without pay constitutes an adverse employment action regardless of whether the suspension is followed by a reinstatement with back pay. In which position Ellis earned more pay than he would have if he had continued working in the forklift position. White was the only female working in the Maintenance of Way department at the Tennessee Yard. White's immediate supervisor was foreman Bill Joiner. He also admitted that he did not believe that the Maintenance of Way department was an appropriate place for women to work. Joiner repeatedly expressed this belief to her while she was working under his supervision. Another Burlington Northern employee agreed at trial that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1226.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2324.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ltd</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. This case requires us to determine whether appellant Capital Terminal Company was entitled to reach a jury on its claim that certain improvements to a fire suppression system were required by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Appellant Ferrostaal claims that steel coils belonging to it were damaged in transit from Tunisia to New Jersey. We hold that the District Court correctly analyzed the choice of law question and that the fair opportunity doctrine is inconsistent with COGSA. We will. 000 a day.1 The Sea Phoenix was to be delivered into TST's control on or about November 24 or 25. The shipper was Tunisacier International S.A. The shipment was to be discharged at the Novolog terminal in Philadelphia and consigned to the order of Ferrostaal Inc. The total cost of the shipment was $171. Ferrostaal's German parent The Charter Party is a standard New York Produce Exchange time charter form modified with extensive strikeouts and an additional seventeen pages of terms. The Bills of Lading are clear and concise. No such date was provided. No charter party was named. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/987472.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by defendant Kmart from a judgment entered on a $650. Was excessive. Who was proffered by Elcock. We conclude that there should have been a Daubert hearing prior to the receipt of Copemann's testimony. That because there was no such hearing. We conclude that his opinion should have been excluded because his economic model relied on assumptions wholly without foundation in the record. Kmart also submits that both the economic and non economic portions of the jury award were excessive and thus should be remitted. Because we find that the jury's tainted economic damage award was not clearly distinct and separate from the non economic portion of its damage verdict. Were caused by her slip and fall. As we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support such a finding. Elcock told Kmart representatives that she had injured her back and right leg and was in excruciating pain. That her injury was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4240.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The facts involved in this case are complicated and lengthy. The gang was modeled on the Chicago </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0216p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kelvin Mondale Newsom was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a term of 86 months of imprisonment. Newsom was driven to his mother's residence by a friend. Newsom told Blacksmith that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4071.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These matters are before the court on the petition for rehearing filed on behalf of Garfield and Kane Counties. We have determined to amend the original panel opinion on page 86. A copy of the amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied in all respects. Most of the transportation routes of the West were established under its authority. R.S. 2477 rights of way were an integral part of the congressional pro development lands policy. The statute thus had the effect of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3289E17C794ACECA88256D7A006C895A/$file/0136130.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that he was retaliated against and ultimately fired due to his Chinese ethnicity and nationality. A Zhang's name is found in the record as both Zhang Wei. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The factual recitation herein is taken from the evidence presented to the jury. Zhang was hired to join American Gem after the takeover. Which was signed by Al Reitzer. Zhang's position was vice president of American Gem and general manager of its Pacific Gem division. Zhang testified that although his division was integral to the new company's operations. He was initially offered a lower salary than the Caucasian vice presidents of the acquired companies. Zhang was promoted to president of the Pacific Gem division. Appellant Harry Lees was hired as president and CEO of MCMI. Jim Hilger was hired as the Chief Financial Officer of American Gem. Zhang presented evidence that he was discriminated against by American Gem's management. Witnesses testified that Lees told them that he distrusted Zhang because he was Chinese. That Lees suspected that Zhang was </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312185.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jose Arias (who was charged in the initial indictment. These recruited </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/954123P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robin Weeks pled guilty in Missouri state court to charges of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty years and life imprisonment. Although Weeks defaulted his postconviction relief and was denied collateral relief in the Missouri state court. His allegation that he is actually innocent. Is sufficient. His assertions that exculpatory evidence exists are sufficient to entitle him to a hearing at which he could develop evidence of his actual innocence. A young woman who was then twentyone years of age. Was driving home through Cape Girardeau. 251 52 (8th Cir. 1997) (opinion vacated upon rehearing en banc). 3 2 and had followed her as she was driving home . . . . As [Weeks] was driving behind her. He came up to the side of the car and had indicated to her that there was some trouble with a back taillight or some part of the back of her car. She rolled down her 4 window enough to hear what he was saying. The next thing she knew a hand with a butchertype knife had come in and was slashing at her hands. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1721p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. **A non final draft of the Opinion in this matter was issued September 23. The correct final draft is filed herein. This is an appeal by plaintiffs Linda S. We reject plaintiffs' contention that their proffered evidence of retaliatory animus was sufficiently </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwMDctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5007-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case arose out of parallel investigations2 of Initial Public Offering ( </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwMDctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5007-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case arose out of parallel investigations2 of Initial Public Offering ( </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/0B2E526E11618CBA88257210007B1F4A/$file/0435253.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case presents the question whether a state prisoner who contends that he is actually innocent. Whose principal witness is coerced by the state into not testifying on his behalf. Roger Smith is currently serving a life sentence with a 30 year minimum term. The claims were procedurally defaulted. All we decide is that. Both the facts and the law are complex. The exception on which he relies is known as the Schlup </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C301AB1B78750E5388256F390079A333/$file/0150082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Suzanne Schoenberg Sanchez ( </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510904.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Marquard argues primarily that his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways during the penalty phase of his trial. Murder of Stacey Willets Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of his girlfriend. After Willets's remains were discovered by hunters in the woods. Marquard and codefendant Michael Abshire were arrested. Are as follows: John Marquard. During a stop in South Carolina Marquard told Abshire that he was going to kill her because he was tired of arguing with her. She was still breathing. Marquard was arrested and confessed. Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. Marquard contended that he was present for the murder of Stacey Willets. Testified that it was Marquard who planned to kill and ultimately did kill Willets. As follows: [STATE ATTORNEY]: Where is the first place that you stopped? [ABSHIRE]: We stopped at a . . . like a convenience store/gas station in South Carolina when the sea bags that were on the trunk fell off. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964669.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is located about 1/4 mile from Spangler's. Who was waxing her car in the lot. The 2 couple drove to a farm that Van Metre's brother was renting in Carroll County. Pennsylvania Trooper Theodore Kotula discovered that there was a valid Pennsylvania state civil bench warrant for contempt of court outstanding against Van Metre arising out of his purported violation of a Protection from Abuse order in favor of his wife. Was in Chattanooga.1 Kotula requested that the Chattanooga authorities arrest Van Metre pursuant to the outstanding Pennsylvania warrant. 2 1 In the early morning hours of September 15. Van Metre was transported to the Chattanooga Police Department. Van Metre arrived at Rawlston's office where he was read his Miranda rights and signed a waiver ofrights form. Van Metre was transported to the Chattanooga City Jail where he was booked as a fugitive from the State of Pennsylvania. He was also charged with simple possession of marijuana and failure to appear on the traffic violations. Van Metre confessed to Freehling that he was guilty of the rape of Yohe and the murder of Blake. </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/50F67AA133DE5D8088256D280073E440/$file/0056043.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing.* The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. *Judge Rawlinson was recused. 6460 SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. v. What makes CU's ratings particularly useful is the thorough explanation of the testing procedures employed. Is no exception. The explanation is not written for morons. It is geared to an intelligent. Yet the careful reader will not fail to understand the central facts that undergird Suzuki's claim in this lawsuit. This is the death of consumer ratings: It will be impossible to issue a meaningful consumer review that a band of determined lawyers can't pick apart in front of a SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. v. The ultimate losers will be American consumers denied access to independent information about the safety and usefulness of products they buy with their hard earned dollars. The majority's analysis is tainted throughout by its failure to articulate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/024084P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kamil Johnson were convicted of murder in aid of racketeering and sentenced to imprisonment for life without release. Was insufficient to support their convictions. They also contend that the statute under which they were convicted. Is unconstitutional because it overreaches Congress's power under the 2 Commerce Clause. Four year old Davisha BrantleyGillum was returning home from a day at a neighborhood festival. Was associated with a gang called the Bogus Boys. Some men standing behind a fence at the edge of the Amoco property began shooting into the car where Davisha was sitting. Police were unable to solve the crime until August 23. Williams was the leader of the St. Was also arrested and indicted. McGruder as the people who were involved in the Davisha Gillum case. Harut was charged with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering. Johnson and McGruder were indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1959. The state law alleged to have been violated was Minn. Which provides: Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life: (1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411545.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was forcefully struck in the jaw with a force he compared to that of a </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.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-7.gif" ALT="729"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/95-1535.htm">95-1535 -- DEMAREST V. PRICE -- 12/03/1997<BR></A><BR> Demarest's petition was filed before the AEDPA's effective date. <u>See</u> <u>Lindh v. Demarest can establish either that there was cause for the default and prejudice resulting from the violation of federal law. Hyams's head was wrapped in a bathrobe and there were puncture wounds around his neck and collarbone. Demarest was distraught and in shock. He was then transferred to the psychiatric ward of another hospital. Demarest was released from the psychiatric ward on February 11. Demarest was taken back to the hospital's psychiatric ward. Was a contrived reaction intended to divert suspicion. <p> At trial. Hyams was murdered by a tall. Hyams's fingernails could not have come from Mr. A blood expert testified that there was no evidence that blood had been transferred between Mr. Demarest hitting his hands on the gravel and would have remembered seeing it. She noticed that his right hand was swollen and there was a small amount of blood on his cuticles. Demarest's hands were already scratched from the struggle with Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/003496.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was otherwise admissible pursuant to Fed. Primarily because it found that its probative value was low and that any such value was outweighed by confusion and unfair prejudice. Coleman contends that this ruling was an abuse of discretion. Which is presumptively probative when not challenged as untrustworthy under Rule 803(8)(C). Although the Circuits are divided on the issue. We conclude that an EEOC Letter of Determination is not per se admissible under Rule 403. We find that other Rule 403 factors undue delay and waste of time are sufficient on the record to tip the scales in favor of finding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the letter. The judgment of the District Court will therefore be affirmed. She stated that she was applying for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-6087.htm">96-6087 -- BEAIRD V. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, INC. -- 05/28/1998<BR></A><BR> More than 200 employees at Seagate's Oklahoma City facility were laid off. Some of the plaintiffs in this case had more than twenty years seniority when they were let go. They argue that it was reversible error to allow Seagate to submit a reply brief with additional materials after plaintiffs had responded to Seagate's original summary judgment motion. They contend that questions of material fact remain with respect to each plaintiff and that summary judgment was thus improper. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> In 1993. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></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="724"></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-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139REVOPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-1772_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Four of the defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment and one received a prison term of 262 months. I. The Latin Kings are a national criminal organization (often called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-2145.htm">96-2145 -- U.S. V. BRISENO-MENDEZ -- 07/17/1998<BR></A><BR> All three were tried jointly before a jury. Silva and Briseno Mendez were convicted on both counts. Castaneda was found guilty on the conspiracy count. Whether the court erred in admitting evidence against Castaneda which was seized during a search of the car he was driving. Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain Briseno Mendez's and Castaneda's convictions. Whether the court erred at sentencing by refusing to find that Castaneda was a minimal participant and that his criminal history was exaggerated. Castaneda were arrested at an immigration checkpoint station in New Mexico after agents found approximately twenty one kilograms of cocaine hidden in their car. <p> When the defendants pulled into the checkpoint. Agent Hector Lugo asked whether everyone in the car was a United States citizen. Who was driving the vehicle. Who was sitting in the front passenger seat. Agent Lugo discovered that Castaneda was not a United States citizen. Rather a resident alien and that Briseno Mendez was not in the United States legally. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1839.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Barlow</U> were on brief. The reasons for this trend are difficult to pinpoint. Some commentators have linked it with heightened efforts to fight organized crime and drug trafficking. Which stated that:</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0245p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DefendantAppellant Mike Darwich ( </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/4A057A971B23BDF98825735200553C3B/$file/0099005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Was convicted in 1979 for the robbery and murder of Rosemary Cobbs. He was sentenced to death. Both the convictions and sentence were upheld by the courts of California. We consider whether Fields was denied a fair trial on account of juror bias. The effect is to deny habeas relief. I Fields was paroled from prison on September 13. Rosemary was naked on the bed and Fields was standing by the door. A 16 year old girl who was the former girlfriend of Fields's brother. That he was going to take her on a long trip </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5016a.html">JOHN H. MCBRYDE V. COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CIRCUIT COUNCIL CONDUCT<BR></A><BR> Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Et al.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/95-2026.html">UNITED STATES V. PLATERO<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. I A There was evidence presented by the government showing the following: After work on September 1. Laughlin was driving. Francis testified that she was reclined in her seat. </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/992389A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="718"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0115p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ryan's is a Delaware corporation. Ryan's argued that Plaintiffs federal court claims were foreclosed by the arbitration agreements that each had executed at the outset of their employment. Holding that there was inadequate consideration for the arbitration agreements. The agreements were not founded upon mutual assent. The court also held that the arbitration forum provided for in the agreements is not able to provide for effective vindication of statutory claims and is an inappropriate substitute for the judicial forum. The second page of the packet notifies the applicant that he or she is required to complete and sign the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2352.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery were on brief for appellant. With whom Luis Edwin Gonz lez Ortiz and O'Neill & Borges were on brief for appellee. SECOMAN was licensed to sell cotton only inside Peru. The joint venture focused on Pima rather than Tanguis cotton because Pima cotton is of higher quality and is generally in greater demand. At the time there was a substantial differential between the price at which Pima cotton could be purchased from cotton producers in Peru and the international market price. Is a subsidiary of the GE Supply Company. Which is in turn a division of the General Electric Company. GE del Caribe is engaged in the sale of General Electric products in the Caribbean. Was the president of GE del Caribe from 1986 to 1993. He was trying to increase his company's sales by penetrating different Latin American markets. Who was the president of Carmel Export Agency. Horizon was informed that there was a seller on the market ready to provide 1. That the seller was willing to pay a commission on the sale. As well as the fact that the international price for Pima cotton was $2.40 per pound. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3050a.html">U.S. V. DWAYNE CASSELL<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/742C988AD526C1E688257067004D01A2/$file/0430091.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Weiland argues: 1) that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) requires suppression of the firearms and ammunition seized during a search of his home because the warrant that authorized the search was not requested by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-8730.man.html">SCHAFER V. TIME, INC. (6/8/1998, NO. 96-8730)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This diversity case requires us to parse the often conflicting and confusing concepts of malice as they have evolved in Georgia's libel laws. Most notably whether specific instances of misconduct are admissible to prove character under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(b) in an action for libel under Georgia law. Although these evidentiary issues are not dispositive given our decision to reverse the district court on the grounds mentioned above. A terrorist's bomb was then. Is now. Had targeted Pan Am 103 to eliminate several of the passengers who were members of a United States counter terrorism team attempting to rescue United States hostages in Lebanon. Is alleged to have told Iranian officials that McKee [one of the U.S. agents] was booked on Flight 103.</P> <P><EM>See</EM> Schafer R. Is Michael Schafer. The instructions included a recitation of Georgia's statutory definition of libel:</P> <P> [A] libel is a false <EM>and malicious</EM> defamation of another expressed in print. Only that Time failed to exercise ordinary care in ascertaining whether the information it published was true or false before it could find in Schafer's favor.</P> <P> After describing these elements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200616324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are confronted with the task of interpreting several provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="716"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-8730.man.html">SCHAFER V. TIME, INC. (6/8/1998, NO. 96-8730)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This diversity case requires us to parse the often conflicting and confusing concepts of malice as they have evolved in Georgia's libel laws. Most notably whether specific instances of misconduct are admissible to prove character under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(b) in an action for libel under Georgia law. Although these evidentiary issues are not dispositive given our decision to reverse the district court on the grounds mentioned above. A terrorist's bomb was then. Is now. Had targeted Pan Am 103 to eliminate several of the passengers who were members of a United States counter terrorism team attempting to rescue United States hostages in Lebanon. Is alleged to have told Iranian officials that McKee [one of the U.S. agents] was booked on Flight 103.</P> <P><EM>See</EM> Schafer R. Is Michael Schafer. The instructions included a recitation of Georgia's statutory definition of libel:</P> <P> [A] libel is a false <EM>and malicious</EM> defamation of another expressed in print. Only that Time failed to exercise ordinary care in ascertaining whether the information it published was true or false before it could find in Schafer's favor.</P> <P> After describing these elements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-3061a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. Four people were present at the time: Richard Spinner. Two of them a .380 caliber Colt semiautomatic pistol and a .45 caliber Sturm Ruger semiauto matic pistol were found under the cushions of a couch in the living room. Was found in the closet of a second floor bedroom. Spinner's fingerprints were also found on two other noteworthy items: a .45 caliber bullet. Which was inside the .45 caliber pistol. A box of .44 caliber bullets found in the closet where the semiautomatic rifle was recovered. No charges were brought against Spinner's sister or his mother. Spinner's cousin was prosecuted in a separate proceeding in juvenile court. The ability to control the contraband that was found there. It introduced into evidence Spinner's personal papers that were found in the bedroom. That he had sold 25 ziplock bags of crack to an undercover officer in front of the house at which the search warrant was executed. Which is commonly called an AR 15 rifle. The prosecutor asked Turner: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As follows: On page 3 the list of amici curiae is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-7050.html">LEFEVRE V. SEC DEPT OF VA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1105p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide whether the district court erred: (1) in allowing plaintiffs to introduce evidence concerning a history of tractor rollovers when the accident at issue did not involve a tractor rollover. Because the district court did err in admitting irrelevant evidence and because that evidentiary error was not harmless. We will vacate the judgment of the district court and remand to the district court for retrial. Plaintiff David Barker ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0121p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tewksbury was working alone as the night clerk at the King Kwik convenience store at 9870 Pippin Road in Hamilton County. Monte was married and was the father of three children. Robert Shephard was driving northbound on Pippin Road. Monte was bleeding from his side. Went back to the telephone which was still off the hook. Monte was transported to a hospital. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6024.htm">00-6024 -- NEILL V. GIBSON -- 12/07/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/971412.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We have granted en banc review to resolve a conflict in our court's jurisprudence that has surfaced following the publication of United States v. We granted the government's petition for rehearing and vacated the panel decision.2 We will now affirm the convictions entered against defendants Universal Rehabilitation Services (PA). Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/005237.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All three were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. One of which is a question of first impression for this Court whether and under what circumstances the trial court must give a jury instruction on venue. Factual Background In the following recitation of the facts on which Appellants' convictions were based. Del Rosario told Daluro that he was getting travel documents for a woman named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0326p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Defendant is a former professor at Ohio State University's School of Business. Between 1991 and 2004 he was married to Kristina Stephan Blackwell ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/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-7.gif" ALT="713"></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-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196a.htm">98-6196A -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999<BR></A><BR> His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196.htm">98-6196 -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999<BR></A><BR> His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/002305p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a District Court order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Ronald A. Who is serving a term of life imprisonment in Pennsylvania for first degree murder. Argues that his right to an impartial jury was abridged because the state courts refused in post trial proceedings to admit certain evidence of racial bias on the part of members of the jury. We therefore vacate the decision of the District Court and remand for an evidentiary hearing at which Williams will have the opportunity to introduce the improperly excluded evidence and to attempt to prove that a juror lied during voir dire. As well as a slip of paper on which was written </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6106.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs relied almost exclusively on Medicaid (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Their private clinics were among many publicly funded facilities that offered such services. Which are typically paid more than private providers for the same services. Dana Brown ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/290352ACBC7FA68188256DE90079C153/$file/0215323.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioner Goodwin Brodit was convicted in state court of continuous sexual abuse of a minor. CAMBRA PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was charged with violating section 288.5 by committing at least three lewd and lascivious acts with his stepniece while he was staying in the home of her mother and stepfather (Petitioner's brother). In an opinion that was published in part. Because the last reasoned state court decision was the California Court of Appeal's consolidated review of Petitioner's direct appeal and habeas petition. CAMBRA 16759 merits in state court unless the state court's decision was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7141a.html">SHEPHERD MICHELE E. V. AMER BCAST CO INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3EAFBA3AC5722E98825703F0002ABCC/$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="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7304.html">DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR> <st1:State>DC</st1:State></st1:place> argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the <st1:country region><st1:place>United States</st1:place></st1:country region>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Donald E. Argued for petitioner Paralyzed Veterans of <st1:country region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></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="711"></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-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/04-5313a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM5NTMtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3953-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. DECREED that the judgments of conviction are AFFIRMED. Except that the case is remanded solely for consideration of whether to modify Bacanovic's sentence. The District Court decided not to modify the sentence that was imposed on July 16. Procedural history Defendants Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic were charged in Superseding Indictment S1 03 Cr. 717 with offenses that arose from their communications to government investigators who were probing trading activity of ImClone Systems. Five months of which were to be served in home confinement. Stewart and Bacanovic were ordered to pay fines of $30. The stays were subsequently vacated and amended judgments of conviction were entered as to Stewart on September 22. Concluding that it would have imposed the same sentence even if the Sentencing Guidelines had not been mandatory at the time of sentencing. His application is granted. Was attempting to sell all of his own shares in the company. Stewart was interviewed twice. To demonstrate that the story Defendants told to investigators was a cover up of the events of December 27th. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-8025.htm">98-8025 -- GARDETTO V. MASON -- 12/14/1999<BR></A><BR> She contends evidence concerning her acts of rude and abrasive behavior was improperly admitted in her suit against the college for the violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and free association. <p> This appeal arises out of a judgment rendered after retrial pursuant to a reversal by this court in <em>Gardetto v. She claimed she was demoted and suspended for eleven days with pay in retaliation for her constitutionally protected public criticism of Mr. This court concluded the jury instructions were improper because they allowed the jury to determine whether the speech in question was protected by the First Amendment. Gardetto filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony concerning alleged verbal confrontations with a variety of persons both before and after the original case was tried. Her request was denied. BACKGROUND</center> <p> The background of this case is fully set forth in our prior opinion. The facts pertinent to this appeal are summarized as follows. <p> Ms. She was eventually promoted to Director of Non Traditional Student Services/Special Services. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyOTFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1291_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Judge) as sentenced John Canova to a one year term of probation after a jury trial at which defendant was found guilty of various substantive and conspiratorial crimes relating to his involvement in a multi million dollar Medicare fraud. Its request for de novo review of the district court's departure decision pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) is now foreclosed by United States v. We conclude that there was such an error in the district court's calculation of the loss amount relevant to the fraud guideline. Was charged in a six count indictment with (1) conspiring to defraud the United States from October 1999 through October 2001 by making false statements to Medicare agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 1999 letter to Medicare that Raytel was in compliance with Medicare specifications for testing pacemakers when he knew that it was not. By directing Raytel's Connecticut employees falsely to represent that Raytel was in full compliance with government testing specifications. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE0MDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1407_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Valentin similarly challenges his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds and also claims that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise a preponderance challenge to his Guidelines calculation. Whose conviction was based on a jury verdict. Whose conviction was based on a guilty plea. We agree with Garcia that the agent's opinion testimony at trial as to Garcia's culpable role in the charged crimes was not properly received. Although the government argues that this testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 as a lay opinion summary of anticipated evidence. We conclude that the necessary predicates of that rule were not satisfied in this case. Because this evidentiary error was harmless. We affirm so much of Garcia's judgment of conviction as reflects the jury verdict 1 2 3 Although the enhanced sentence provision of § 841(b)(1)(A) is triggered by trafficking in amounts of five kilograms or more of cocaine. We conclude that the district court's Guidelines calculations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0307p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted at trial in a state court of conspiring with her sons to murder the boys' father. A federal writ of habeas corpus was subsequently granted on the ground that her Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense precluded the state trial court from barring evidence that Mr. The writ should not have been issued unless exclusion of the evidence in question involved an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1246A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Goodkin were on brief. Davis were on brief. The question raised is whether Congress intended to prohibit enforcement of pre dispute arbitration agreements covering employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a matter of law in all cases or at least under certain facts said to be present here. The form itself did not state which claims were to be arbitrated. Rather referred to the rules of various organizations with which Rosenberg was registering. When her employment was later terminated. Was not an adequate forum due to what the district court called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031537p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This immigration case presents two questions of law: (1) whether we have jurisdiction over certain discretionary denials by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals of motions to remand under the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. We conclude that we have jurisdiction over the type of denial the BIA exercised in this case. That the appropriate standard of review for the fact cited in that denial is substantial evidence. We will vacate the BIA's denial as an abuse of discretion and remand this case for further explanation and development of the record. 3 I. A. Mykhaylo Korytnyuk is a native and citizen of the Ukraine who came to the United States on June 8. Korytnyuk through counsel admitted that he had overstayed his visa and was held to be deportable. While his direct appeal was pending. Korytnyuk received an approved immigrant petition for alien worker. 2 With that The INS is now the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services within the Department of Homeland Security. 6 U.S.C. § 271 (2004). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972618.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/97-2618.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L (3/15/2001, NO. 97-2618)<BR></A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213654.opn2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Anton Pusztai and Anita Yates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-3187.htm">02-3187 -- U.S. V. BAILEY -- 04/25/2003<BR></A><BR> All the partners were family members and/or close friends of Bailey's. The Partnership consisted of Bailey and eleven partners. <p> The Partnership Agreement was year to year. The Managing Partner shall have no authority to invest in and shall be specifically prohibited from investing Partnership funds in real estate. None of these transactions were authorized by the Partnership Agreement or the other partners. Bailey also apparently used funds transferred from the Partnership accounts to his personal accounts to pay for a new home he built for his family. <p> Bailey was required by the Partnership Agreement to provide quarterly reports to the partners. They also failed to reveal that Bailey was investing in futures. The Partnership capital was something less than $2000. The suit sought termination of the Partnership and to have an accounting. The two suits were certified as class actions and were consolidated. <p> The civil suits resulted in a settlement. Bailey was indicted in a twenty two count indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984656.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are as follows. Were named in a multi count indictment arising out of their association with an extensive cocaine and cocaine base ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/97-2618.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L (3/15/2001, NO. 97-2618)<BR></A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972618.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214306.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence at trial demonstrated that Pipkins and Moore prostituted juvenile females ­ at least one of whom was as young as 12 ­ from at least 1997 until their arrest in late 2001. The Defendants were convicted of conspiracy. Most noteworthy is whether the evidence supports the jury's finding that they agreed to participate in an enterprise that met the statutory definition of a RICO enterprise. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant Pipkins (known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1307.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Norman Roy Grutman and Grutman Greene & Humphrey were on brief. Mahoney & Miller were on brief. Vetter & White were on brief. Was a vendor to Sammartino. The gold was made available in daily allotments for SI's manufacture of fine jewelry. A field warehouse was established under the auspices of SLT Warehouse Company (SLT). Putnam was to be paid for the metal as and when the manufacturer sold the jewelry which it made from the gold. Learned that Putnam's carrier was planning to cancel existing coverage. Pateman was the lead underwriter.1 In July 1987. Sammartino notified Putnam that substantial amounts of the vendor's gold were missing. Putnam filed claim under the Lloyd's policy for 1Lloyd's marine policy no. 243440200 was syndicated and. That Pateman was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2FA43604F5CB31A8825723A005ACAC0/$file/0315955.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Judge CLIFTON joins as to Part II A and II B: The question before us is whether a provision to submit to arbitration in a written franchise agreement is valid and enforceable. A three judge panel of our court held that the unconscionability of an arbitration provision contained in the franchise agreement is a question for the arbitrator to decide. It was error to hold that consideration of the unconscionability of the arbitration provision was to be determined by the arbitrator. Is unconscionable must be referred to the arbitrator. When the crux of the complaint is not the invalidity of the contract as a whole. Then the federal courts must decide whether the arbitration provision is invalid and unenforceable under 9 U.S.C. § 2 of the FAA.1 The federal courts cannot shirk their statutory obligation to do so simply because controlling substantive state law requires the court to consider. No cause of action in the complaint alleges that the franchise agreement is invalid because it is a contract of adhesion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1806p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wilburn ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1308.html">ADT CORP V. LYDALL<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-2308.htm">01-2308 -- U.S. V. SARRACINO -- 08/19/2003<BR></A><BR> David Sarracino were jointly indicted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A09B2D465650DB7F882572E40080D5A2/$file/0410632.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellee Kevin Eric Curtin was convicted in federal court by a jury of the felony crimes of (1) traveling across state lines with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor. The panel concluded that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0095p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Martez Matthews was convicted of possessing five grams or more of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. He was sentenced to a total of 162 months of imprisonment and 4 years of supervised release. Kentucky was blanketed with fresh snow. Matthews was cleaning the snow from his car. Which was parked on the street. He later told the police that while he was cleaning off his car. Realized that it was a bag of something. Matthews's neighbor Brenda Jones testified that she heard men yelling outside and she looked out to see what was going on. She said that she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-2225.htm">01-2225 -- U.S. V. HARRISON -- 08/07/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-2225.htm">01-2225 -- U.S. V. HARRISON -- 07/18/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1284.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Stephen B. With him on the brief were Aaron Stiefel and Daniel P. With him on the brief were Edward C. Arguing that the `398 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the ground that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Amount of [the peptide] 1deamino 8 D arginine vasopressin and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier in solid oral dosage form for absorption in the gastrointestinal tract of said humans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff was traveling aboard one of Defendant's buses from Michigan to Georgia. (J.A. at 984) The bus did not have an entryresistant barrier next to the driver's seat. Sands was driving the bus at an approximate speed of 65 to 70 miles per hour when. Plaintiff served Defendant with a Request for Production of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1222a.html">FOX TELEVISION STATIONS V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Cappuccio argued the cause for petitioners.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1222b.html">FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Cappuccio argued the cause for petitioners.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1222b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the joint briefs were Bruce D. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief was Jack N. Leanza were on the brief for intervenors/amici curiae Con sumer Federation of America and United Church of Christ. Is the Rule irrational? 16 2. Chief Judge: Before the court are five consoli dated petitions to review and one appeal from the Federal Communications Com mission's 1998 decision not to repeal or to modify the national television station ownership rule. (UCC) have intervened and filed briefs in support of the Commission's decision to retain the national television station ownership rule. We conclude that the Commission's decision to retain the rules was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. We vacate the cable/broadcast cross ownership rule because we think it un likely the Commission will be able on remand to justify retaining it. To review each of the Commission's ownership rules every two years: The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1222a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the joint briefs were Bruce D. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief was Jack N. Leanza were on the brief for intervenors/amici curiae Con sumer Federation of America and United Church of Christ. Is the Rule irrational? 16 2. Chief Judge: Before the court are five consoli dated petitions to review the Federal Communications Com mission's 1998 decision not to repeal or to modify the national television station ownership rule. (UCC) have intervened and filed briefs in support of the Commission's decision to retain the national television station ownership rule. We conclude that the Commission's decision to retain the rules was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. We vacate the cable/broadcast cross ownership rule because we think it un likely the Commission will be able on remand to justify retaining it. To review each of the Commission's ownership rules every two years: The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2011.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also hold that the defendants have established that the district court plainly erred when sentencing these defendants. Which we have consolidated for disposition. Kendall Lipscomb was a correctional officer who only had <hr> approximately six months of experience at the time of the incident. Duran was ordered to leave the dining hall. Where they were joined by Lieutenants Fuller and Serrata. The camera either malfunctioned during the incident or was never turned on. So there is no tape of the event. Convinced that he was about to be beaten. Said that he would not allow his other hand <hr> to be cuffed until the video camera was turned on. Duran was lying on the ground face first with both hands behind his back. Who were standing on opposite sides of Mr. The defendants' version of the story is considerably different. Officers Fuller and Butler were on either side of Mr. Duran continued to defy the officers' orders when the dogs were brought out. Duran was. Fighting with the officers to an extent that use of force on the part of the officers was reasonable and necessary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-6487.htm">98-6487 -- U.S. V. JACKSON -- 06/02/2000<BR></A><BR> We determine none have merit. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Elk City Police Department decided to set up video surveillance at two residences they suspected were at the center of a crack distribution system. Two VCRs and a transmitter that allowed officers to record and listen to conversations in and around the car as they were occurring. <p> During their investigation. The Elk City Police were holding Ms. Which was recorded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006 * This case was originally argued on October 25. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0160p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant James Smithers was convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015111.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That were directed at counsel for Defendant Tenneco Packaging Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F8B293F4A9CD8EB882570CE005A27CD/$file/0216947.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plant diseasecausing fungi are rarely the subject of casual dinner conversation. Scab are extremely serious matters. Benlate was one of DuPont's most successful commercial products. Who are commercial nurserymen. Many similar suits were filed by commercial growers across the nation. It became clear that DuPont had not revealed to Plaintiffs during discovery damaging test results that indicated that Benlate was indeed contaminated with SUs. There are three different categories of tests concealed. The settlement between Fuku Bonsai and DuPont was approved by the bankruptcy court on May 16. DUPONT DE NEMOURS 15643 by Alta Analytical Laboratories ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/009005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/97-8838.ma3.html">CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838)<BR></A><BR> Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/97-8838.ma3.html">CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838)<BR></A><BR> Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. <p> In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. <em>See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <em>See</em> <em>id</em>. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1515.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were found guilty of both offenses. Robert Verbickas was found guilty of the substantive deprivation charge. We have consolidated all five cases for disposition on appeal. Eight Bureau of Prisons ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/98-6485.htm">98-6485 -- MACSENTI V. BECKER -- 01/22/2001<BR></A><BR> Jurisdiction in the district court was based on diversity of citizenship. (Hereinafter in this opinion we will use </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nor that damages were incidental to equitable and declaratory relief or that common questions of law or fact predominated. We are persuaded by none of the plaintiffs' arguments The plaintiffs/appellants are Cornelius Cooper. I. The complex facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are these. Who are The plaintiffs subsequently amended their Complaint in August. Throughout this opinion references to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/96-7089b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kestell was on the briefs. Hamilton were on the briefs. Was on the briefs. Thereafter was unable to perform his prior job as an orderly at Washington Hospital Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/66B1D9D4DCF2001288256FB10079C154/$file/0315715.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are hereby amended. The amended opinion and amended dissent are filed concurrently herewith. The Opinion and Dissent are amended as follows: 1. The petitioner must have either referenced specific provisions of the federal constitution . . . or cited to federal case law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972721.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> During which the Sam's workers cast votes indicating whether they desired Union representation.1 The factual discussion that follows is drawn from the ALJ's findings. A. As employees and management at Sam's were gearing up for the election. Union matters were a frequent topic of conversation. While they were alone in an office that she hoped that the Union won the elec 1 The employees voted against Union representation by a vote of 88 to 52. 2 According to the testimony of Sam's general manager Kent Kramer. This organizing campaign was the first attempt by a union to organize in the retail divisions of Wal Mart Stores. 3 tion. It is not clear from the record which of the two women actually made the statement that she thought Sam's would close. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6397.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-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/96-4016.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MEACHAM<BR></A><BR> (2) there was insufficient evidence that he acted with a dominant purpose of engaging in criminal sexual activity when he transported his minor relative in interstate commerce. Was twelve years old when she testified at the trial. One occurring when she was seven or eight and the other on which the charge was based when she was ten. The witness stated that she did not say anything to defendant after the first incident because she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cherrix was sentenced to death for the January 27. Was sodoCherrix was also convicted of forcible sodomy. While Cherrix was incarcerated in the Accomack County Jail on unrelated charges. Was ruled out as a suspect. When Cherrix led investigators to the spot in the creek where Birch had supposedly told him the murder weapon was discarded. (This gun's patterns were consistent with the bullets recovered from Van Hart's body. Later the day the gun was recovered. He used hand and arm gestures to demonstrate how Birch had purportedly claimed to have dumped the rifle. Cherrix's confession was reduced to handwriting by Lewis. 4 IN RE BRAXTON suggested that his confession was false. It is not unprecedented for an accused to confess to a crime that he did not actually commit. Was the .22 caliber Marlin rifle. There was also testimony. There is no indication in the record that the rifle recovered from the creek bore such a carving.2 Cherrix pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. At the time Van Hart was killed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1317p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Coastal filed a counterclaim against Nautilus alleging that Nautilus was solely responsible for the grounding. We are asked to determine whether the district court erred in admitting opinions and conclusions contained in a Coast Guard Report of the incident into evidence. We will affirm the ruling of the district court. I. We need only briefly set forth the underlying facts as they are detailed in the district court's opinion. The approach to the berth was unsafe. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1185.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Timmerman was terminated from her position as branch manager at U.S. A position in which she was <hr> responsible for managing (with co worker Chad Royle) several bank branches and supervising the branch managers at those locations. Was re titled. Timmerman and her male co worker were demoted to the position of branch manager. Bank was terminated. Timmerman was fifty two years old. Claims instead that she was not aware the refunds were made in contravention of company policy. That she was only looking out for the financial interests of her co employees. Bank sought and was granted leave to assert state law counterclaims against Ms. Timmerman sought and was granted leave to amend her complaint to add claims for retaliation under Title VII and the ADEA. Bank's asserted legitimate reason for her termination is pretextual. Timmerman additional pages of briefing is best characterized as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053380p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that his conviction is flawed by numerous alleged errors in his trial and that the district court erred in finding that the prosecution had properly filed and served upon Rivas an information charging the prior drug conviction on the basis of which the government sought to enhance Rivas's sentence. Who had pleaded guilty and were cooperating with the government. Which were also videotaped. Both Rivas and Culler were there. He could not see what was going on inside the car. The transaction was videotaped. Culler and Johnson were all heavily impeached by their prior crimes and by lies they told about the details of those crimes while on the stand in the present case. The court instructed the jury that the guilty pleas of the coconspirators were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053380pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that his conviction is flawed by numerous alleged errors in his trial and that the district court erred in finding that the prosecution had properly filed and served upon Rivas an information charging the prior drug conviction on the basis of which the government sought to enhance Rivas's sentence. Who had pleaded guilty and were cooperating with the government. Which were also videotaped. Both Rivas and Culler were there. He could not see what was going on inside the car. The transaction was videotaped. Culler and Johnson were all heavily impeached by their prior crimes and by lies they told about the details of those crimes while on the stand in the present case. The court instructed the jury that the guilty pleas of the coconspirators were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0800p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellees/cross appellants are 23 of 28 former yard and clerical employees of Pennsylvania Truck Lines. The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision clarifying the standards by which federal employment discrimination cases are to be judged. We will vacate the judgment that was entered and remand for a new trial. We will also decide several subsidiary issues relating to individual claims and plaintiffs. I. Because our resolution of the legal issues will require a new trial. It is not necessary to discuss the facts in great detail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054260np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Nolan Hugh was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery. He was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment. We will affirm. The teller at the check cashing store that was robbed by two men testified for the 2 government. The contents of that report were not subsequently referred to in the testimony. D 1 A was never offered into evidence. The second page of the record of the interview was marked Defendant's Exhibit D 1B for identification. The entire exhibit for identification will be referred to herein as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1070.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The production of the Waiver Documents was pursuant to subpoena and pursuant to written confidentiality agreements between Qwest and each agency.(1) In relevant part. Except to the extent that (1) At oral argument Qwest disclaimed any argument that its production of the Waiver Documents to the agencies was involuntary. We take it as settled that Qwest's production of the Waiver Documents was voluntary. Which allows us to focus on material issues rather than extraneous matters. <hr> the Staff determines that disclosure is otherwise required by law or would be in furtherance of the Commission's discharge of its duties and responsibilities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></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-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are employees of the City of Altus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Approximately 29 City employees are Hispanic. All Plaintiffs are Hispanic and bilingual. Received a complaint that because Street Department employees were speaking Spanish. Other employees could not understand what was being said on <hr> the City radio. Sanchez was particularly concerned that his subordinates. The letter informed Nettles that employees had not been given proper notice if this was a new administrative policy and questioned whether Willis and the City had followed proper procedures in implementing the new policy. Sanchez reported that Willis had told him that the reason Hispanics speak Spanish </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0881n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gaston was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas. It ruled that the audio taped statement was admissible under Ohio Rule of Evidence 807(A). Gaston's right to confrontation was impermissibly denied under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Confrontation Clause in Ohio v. Was the sister of K.B. The seven year old child who was named as the rape victim in Count Two of the indictment. Williams was also a friend of Ms. E.W. were also friends. Gaston testify on her behalf at her trial in which she was accused of child endangerment resulting in the death of her twenty month old son. She was concerned that Ms. E.W. was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/99-1581.htm">99-1581 -- VOIROL V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS -- 07/26/2002<BR></A><BR> On behalf of the other American Federation members who have not seceded from International Co Masonry. The parties' various claims were tried to the district court without a jury during the week of April 14. All requests for attorney's fees were denied. <p> Plaintiffs appealed. Haydn was a Freemason. As was Mozart. Benjamin Franklin was an enthusiastic Freemason. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/019004p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Antuan Bronshtein was convicted in a Pennsylvania court for first degree murder and sentenced to death. The District Court found merit in some but not all of Bronshtein's claims and ordered that a writ of habeas corpus be granted unless Bronshtein was retried within a specified time. Antuan Bronshtein was tried in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County on charges stemming from the robbery and shooting death of Alexander Gutman. These prints were later identified as Bronshtein's. He was convicted for that offense. Bronshtein admitted that he was acquainted with him and that he knew that he owned a jewelry store. He and Bronshtein were riding in Bronshtein's car on Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia when Bronshtein said that he had killed a man in a jewelry store </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611141.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clerici's Lawsuit in Panama Clerici is a Panamanian citizen and merchant who also resides in Miami. Certain property of NoName was seized. The attachment of NoName's property was vacated. The 2 resolution of Clerici's civil lawsuit was appealed and affirmed by Panama's First Superior Court of Justice on November 13. NoName alleged that it was a new business in Panama and in the process of expanding. In which Clerici was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2158VOL2.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bicki</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/98-5228.man.html">UNITED STATES V. LOWERY (2/3/1999, NO. 98-5228)<BR></A><BR> Are prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2). Was indicted for conspiracy to possess cocaine. That the court was not obliged to grant the government's motions in any event.</P> <P> Before trial. That had been done just nine days after the decision was issued. The district court recognized that <EM>Singleton</EM> was no longer the law in the Tenth Circuit. Was indicted for bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Their plea agreements were similar to those the government reached with the <EM>Lowery</EM> co defendants. His motion was adopted by Henderson. Daniel Saunders and Celso Pinho were indicted for conspiracy to import marijuana. The agreements were otherwise similar to the plea agreements entered into by the cooperating witnesses in <EM>Burke. </EM> that is. 1058 (11th Cir.1996).</P> <P><CENTER>A. 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2)</CENTER> </P> <P> As we have said. The issue is whether plea agreements of the kind found in this case violate the federal prohibition against bribing witnesses contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2).</P> <P> Since the Tenth Circuit panel issued its opinion in <EM>Singleton. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/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-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971835.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was destroyed by fire. Believing that the fire was incendiary in nature. In attempting to prove its claim that the fire was deliberately set. Westfield Insurance presented the testimony of the West Virginia Deputy Fire Marshal who gave his opinion that the fire was incendiary. Including one which Harris conceded at oral argument was error that the verdict should not be reduced by the amount that Westfield Insurance paid Harris' mortgagor as an innocent insured. Was amiss. Just moments before the fire was discovered. The outside gas meter was clicking very rapidly. Based on the evidence and conclusion reached by the investigator as well as evidence that there was little furniture in the house and that Harris had a history of at least seven prior fire loss claims. Harris' dwelling in West Hamlin was destroyed by fire while no one was home. Which was located directly across the road from the later dwelling which burned on January 10. Was also destroyed by fire. No one was home at the time of this fire. 3. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-3050a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. On the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: Appellant Dwayne Cassell was charged in a five count indictment with. 9 mm semi automatic fire arm that fell from underneath the rear bumper of Cassell's car while it was being towed. Cassell was convicted of both firearms charges.1 Cassell appeals on grounds that the evidence of his two prior gun possessions violated Rules 404(b) and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evi dence. Hart is Dwayne Cassell's uncle. Who was present during part of the search. Was carrying $1429 in cash on his person. From other parts of the house the police 1 Cassell was also convicted of two other charges that are not relevant to this appeal. recovered additional marijuana. Cassell's car was impounded and towed from Sursum Corda. The government contended that the evi dence was probative of Cassell's knowing and intentional possession of the firearms recovered from his bedroom. That his possession of those firearms was not mistaken. The government also contended that the evidence was probative of his criminal intent and state of mind. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/98-5228.man.html">UNITED STATES V. LOWERY (2/3/1999, NO. 98-5228)<BR></A><BR> Are prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2). Was indicted for conspiracy to possess cocaine. That the court was not obliged to grant the government's motions in any event.</P> <P> Before trial. That had been done just nine days after the decision was issued. The district court recognized that <EM>Singleton</EM> was no longer the law in the Tenth Circuit. Was indicted for bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Their plea agreements were similar to those the government reached with the <EM>Lowery</EM> co defendants. His motion was adopted by Henderson. Daniel Saunders and Celso Pinho were indicted for conspiracy to import marijuana. The agreements were otherwise similar to the plea agreements entered into by the cooperating witnesses in <EM>Burke. </EM> that is. 1058 (11th Cir.1996).</P> <P><CENTER>A. 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2)</CENTER> </P> <P> As we have said. The issue is whether plea agreements of the kind found in this case violate the federal prohibition against bribing witnesses contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2).</P> <P> Since the Tenth Circuit panel issued its opinion in <EM>Singleton. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/697201FC39B8A407882571DA0078FB4B/$file/0516455.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that California inmates continue to have a liberty interest in parole after In re Dannenberg. The state court decisions upholding Sass' parole denials were not contrary to. Sass was convicted of second degree murder. He was sentenced to fifteen years to life with the possibility of parole. The Board cited the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/032544P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the error was not harmless. I. It is undisputed that Mr. Who was nineteen years old at the time. Who was thirteen years old. Blue Bird is an Indian and the encounter at issue in this case took place in Indian Country. A defendant's good faith belief that a minor with whom he or she had sexual intercourse had attained the age of sixteen is an affirmative defense. Blue Bird maintained that he had such a reasonable belief and testified that the minor had told him that she was seventeen years old. Blue Bird's defense was the only material issue at trial. Blue Bird had had sexually suggestive encounters with them when they were minors. He maintains that it was error to admit testimony from the prosecuting witness that she was a virgin when she had sexual intercourse with Mr. Which were covered with menstrual blood. There is some confusion in our cases on the proper standard of review with respect to evidentiary issues. We have sometimes said that in reviewing a district court's admission of evidence we review for an abuse of discretion. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1034.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 8. O'Keefe and Packer & O'Keefe were on brief for appellant. Snow & Hahn was on brief for appellee. The R/V Endeavor is a vessel chartered by the National Science Foundation to URI's Graduate School of Oceanog raphy (GSO) for research purposes. Which are submerged in salt water during normal operation of the vessel. Is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0932p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the March 9. Because the record reflects a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether J & H's asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging Sempier are pretextual. We will reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of J & H. Sempier avers that no one advised him that his performance was less than satisfactory nor did anyone bring to his attention any deficiencies in his performance of his functions. The firm's chairman who was Sempier's friend and had been instrumental in Sempier being elected as CFO. States that he was generally pleased with Sempier's work. Johnson sought to have Sempier replaced. When Sempier was elected. Sempier was unanimously reelected to the Board in 1989. Who is fourteen years younger than Sempier. Who is four years younger than Sempier. J & H had instituted an early retirement program to retire </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/963833P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sumner was charged with touching the genitals of the victim. Sumner was living with D.D.'s mother on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota. One of which involved uncharged conduct and one for which he was convicted. Evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/991893.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2087.htm">98-2087 -- U.S. V. CHARLEY -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014083.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. was convicted of posing as an investment advisor and defrauding Michael Emmanuel out of more than $100. Hill insists that the assets were delivered to him as gifts. Claiming the money was a loan. Jr. was charged in a six count superceding indictment. Hill was accused of misrepresenting himself as a financial advisor of two investment firms. That were not kept in Emmanuel's name. Hill was UNITED STATES v. He was acquitted of the remaining two counts. Hill's defense was that he had a personal relationship with Emmanuel. 000 was a gift. . . . do hereby certify that I have given/will give a gift of $10. Is dissimlar and hasn't been proven to be similar would have the effect of confusing the jury. . . . We're speculating and assuming that the reason for the termination of the relationship [between Shreshta and Emmanuel] and the ultimate suit was similar to what we had here. That's not what this case is about. ... Hill argues that this ruling was one of four reversible errors. Hill also challenges the district court's decisions to: (1) permit the introduction of relevant evidence that was obtained as part of a search that unlawfully exceeded the scope of the warrant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3FC68213410F1189882571DB005A0F82/$file/0171051ao.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Tucson Electric Power Company. 22 3 Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1796515EB13DA42882571BD007FC846/$file/0171051.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery. Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413799.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to death for one of the murders.1 After exhausting his state court remedies. Because he was 17 years old at the time of his offenses.2 See Roper 125 S. Ct. at 1200 (concluding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974465.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rehearing en banc on the witness exclusion issue of Michael Rhynes is granted. Parts IV and XVI (only insofar as Part XVI relates to Part IV) of the published majority opinion filed 10/26/99 are vacated. Lines 11 12 the counsel listing is corrected to add </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-2357.htm">01-2357 -- U.S. V. HERDER -- 02/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Both defendants were sentenced to concurrent terms of forty six months in prison. We have combined them for purposes of disposition. <p> The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion. The appellants contend that the district court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury to consider Sheila's reputation for violence in determining whether she was the first aggressor. <p> Appellant Herder separately argues that plain error occurred when the government introduced evidence regarding Cynthia Redhouse's reputation for violence. Was living with Mary Jane Redhouse's son. Apparently Mary Jane had not known Wilfred was allowing Sheila to drive Mary Jane's car. Were just leaving. There is general agreement that Mary Jane demanded the car keys and ordered Sheila out of the trailer. It is also uncontested that Sheila then returned to the bedroom and began to pack up her belongings. Who was looking out from the bathroom. Testified that she was simply going back to the bedroom to get the car keys and that when she entered. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-6241.htm">02-6241 -- PIERCE V. MACY -- 03/02/2004<BR></A><BR> Because DNA analysis demonstrated that Pierce could not have been the source of the semen found on the rape victim. His conviction was vacated on May 7. He was released from prison. Pierce's complaint is that Dr. Were routinely used to secure convictions. While this system may have provided the citizens of Oklahoma with a false sense of efficient justice. If the allegations are correct. Are limited to the facts and legal issues bearing on the claims against Defendants Gilchrist and Macy. <p> Because Defendants raise only issues of law in connection with their appeal of the district court's denial of qualified immunity. Pierce was employed as a landscaper at the Woodlake complex. He was 25 years old. While police were still on the scene. Pierce was taken by police to be viewed by the victim. Pierce was not the rapist. Two witnesses testified that he was elsewhere at the time of the rape. <p> In March of 1986. Pierce was arrested and taken into custody. The arrest warrant was supported by an affidavit filed by an OCPD officer stating that Ms. </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/200514864.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that her loss amount was erroneously calculated at sentencing. We also find that her loss amount was erroneously calculated at sentencing. Was the other 50% owner of Ocean. Santos was a codefendant at trial. Was acquitted pursuant to a motion under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Carlos Gonzalez was the other 50% owner at United and was convicted at trial along with Guerra. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 Ocean dealt in Durable Medical Equipment ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/93-3380.opa.html">WALKER V. NATIONSBANK OF FL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Walker v. The branch was given an overall rating of unsatisfactory.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/93-3380.opa.html">WALKER V. NATIONSBANK OF FL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Walker v. The branch was given an overall rating of unsatisfactory.<a href= </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.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-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08878B3F87AA23AB88256B970082A04D/$file/9935932.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tidyman's argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying Tidyman's' motion for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient. That the size of the jury verdict was excessive. Tidyman's argues that the Washington state law is intended to cover only accrued wages that are not paid. Arguing that we should not apply the Title VII damages cap to these awards because it is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the district court's determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages. We conclude that Title VII's cap on punitive damages is constitutional. Was promoted to officer manager. Hemmings was promoted to controller in 1987. Hemmings was concerned about the lack of women in management positions at Tidyman's and what she perceived as roadblocks to their promotions. Was promoted to Chief Operating Officer and the CFO position opened. Trial witnesses testified that Hemmings was wellqualified for the CFO position. Hemmings was interviewed for the position along with another woman and one man. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BCEAD60A11F3FDA58825731500839F59/$file/0630192.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Assuming we have jurisdiction. That in some respects the district court's pretrial orders were improper. That the government had initially stated it would have been prepared to try the case in September 2005. It cannot now credibly claim that it is necessary to continue adding witnesses to an already unwieldy list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986882.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was armed with a rifle. While Peoples was armed with a deadly weapon. Recommended that Peoples be sentenced to death for each murder by an 11 to 1 vote. 2 This opinion is organized as follows. He joined Peoples and the Franklins who were sitting around a table. 3 Peoples knew about the Corvette because he had been a member of a work crew that built a fence around the Franklins's backyard and from time to time had performed odd jobs in and around the Franklin residence. 3 Peoples soon left the table to look for the Franklins' ten year old son. He brought him to the table where Gooden and the boy's parents were sitting. Gooden replaced her gag and 4 Paul Franklin was seriously disabled as a result of shrapnel injuries suffered in Vietnam. Gooden remained with the Corvette and pick up truck while all of this was taking place. Was walking toward the Talladega Downs when Peoples arrived at the apartment complex. He told her that it was an early birthday present for his wife. As they were talking. She noticed what he was wearing a light colored shirt and blue jeans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5007.html">AIR LAND FORWARDERS, INC. V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 98-5007)<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Stanley I. With him on the brief were <u>David M. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p> The appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/009000.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-1248.htm">01-1248 -- MORRIS V. BURNETT -- 02/19/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/95-2898.man.html">WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)<BR></A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/00-1012b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-4241.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 158(d). I. The facts of this case are undisputed. A foreclosure sale was scheduled for December 16. The Trustee filed two concurrent motions in the bankruptcy court that are the subject of this appeal. Or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. 11 U.S.C. 105(a). The Trustee and State Bank stipulated at the hearing that the amount of State Bank's claim was $148. That the sum of secured and unsecured claims was $207. There was substantial equity in the property in excess of State Bank's $148. Once the automatic stay was again in place. State Bank asserted that because the value of the property was $170. There was not sufficient equity in it to merit enjoining the foreclosure sale to allow the Trustee to liquidate the property. State Bank contended that the bankruptcy court's finding in the order lifting the stay that the Debtors acted in bad faith was res judicata in the current proceeding. The question of determining value is difficult because it seems to me that there are some questions of credibility on both appraisals. . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042640np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Suggs argues that the Court's rulings on the motions were erroneous and that its sentence violated the Sixth Amendment of our Constitution. I. Procedural Background Suggs was indicted for armed bank robbery (in February 2002) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (Count 1). The base offense level was 20 for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1. The Court's calculation for Count 4 was the same as that for Count 3 minus the two level enhancement for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/95-2898.man.html">WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)<BR></A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></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-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B989B7B5F7111E9C88256E5A00707ADE/$file/9856770.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended to include the attached dissent. Circuit Judge: Defendant Ruben Zuno Arce is in custody following his 1992 conviction stemming from the kidnapping and murder of DEA Agent Enrique Camarena and his pilot. Defendant was a member of a drug cartel centered in Guadalajara. In 1990 he was tried. Defendant was convicted. Defendant was found guilty of conspiring to commit violent crimes in aid of a racketeering enterprise. The mandate was never stayed or recalled by this court or by the Supreme Court. Cervantes Santos' changes of heart are described more fully in the district court's published opinion in this case. The district court concluded that Defendant's motion for a new trial was untimely under United States v. The district court concluded that the motion was filed too late. Because the motion was filed after April 23. It was subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Rule 33 was amended to provide that such a motion could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB80FF9C7DF43A3E88256A2A0059CBBE/$file/9856770.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended to include the attached dissent. Circuit Judge: Defendant Ruben Zuno Arce is in custody following his 1992 conviction stemming from the kidnapping and murder of DEA Agent Enrique Camarena and his pilot. Defendant was a member of a drug cartel centered in Guadalajara. In 1990 he was tried. Defendant was convicted. Defendant was found guilty of conspiring to commit violent crimes in aid of a racketeering enterprise. The mandate was never stayed or recalled by this court or by the Supreme Court. Cervantes Santos' changes of heart are described more fully in the district court's published opinion in this case. The district court concluded that Defendant's motion for a new trial was untimely under United States v. The district court concluded that the motion was filed too late. Because the motion was filed after April 23. It was subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Rule 33 was amended to provide that such a motion could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/061693P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction on Count V. I. The background of this case and Kenyon's first trial are described in our prior opinion. When A.L. was between the ages of eight and eleven. She was a regular overnight guest at the home of Ronald Kenyon and his common law wife. A.L. was interviewed by a physician's assistant. We held that Kroupa's testimony was inadmissible hearsay that had improperly bolstered A.L.'s account and. Was dismissed on the motion of the government during trial. She also stated that she had not disclosed the abuse before her interview with Kroupa because she was scared of Kenyon. Repeat two comments made by A.L. that are disputed on appeal. The court determined that Kenyon's advisory guideline sentencing range was 324 to 405 months' imprisonment. Expert testimony that he says was received without proper notice or a required hearing on reliability. When she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/62E1182AB517E12E88256D470071E51F/$file/0115141.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES were adopted in response to train derailments within the state. Are preempted by federal railroad safety laws or regulations. A Southern Pacific train was also involved in another toxic spill resulting from a derailment near Seacliff. CPUC was directed to consider factors such as (1) the severity of the grade and curve. CPUC was further directed to consider </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53700B414D9E019088256E5A00707C8A/$file/0050276.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: The appellants Ted Stevenson Angwin and Christine Khamis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0403p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we reluctantly conclude that no other avenue of federal relief is available to Patterson at this stage. I. BACKGROUND Patterson was convicted of involuntary manslaughter based on child endangering in July of 1997. He was sentenced to a term of between 10 and 25 years in prison. His wife Lisa was convicted of misdemeanor child endangering and received a sentence of six months in prison. Patterson argued that the trial court had erred in excluding the expert testimony of a criminologist proffered by Patterson and that his conviction was unconstitutional because the evidence was insufficient to sustain it. The appellate court discussed the difference between an allegation that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction and the argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. It then concluded: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952898.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. Finding that none of the plaintiffs had carried The plaintiffs' original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). The district court's task was to examine the evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial and determine whether the plaintiff had presented credible evidence in support of the four elements of a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): 1) she is a member of a protected class under Title VII. 2) she was qualified for the employment position in question. 3) she applied for the employment position in question and was rejected. 4) the employment position remained open or was filled by a person outside the protected class to which the plaintiff belongs. We are equally suited to undertake the same task on appeal. Can determine whether the evidence supporting the prima facie case is credible. 2 2 This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs filed an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952898.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. The plaintiffs' original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). I. This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The district court's task was to examine the evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial and determine whether the plaintiff had presented credible evidence in support of the four elements of a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): 1) she is a member of a protected class under Title VII. 2) she was qualified for the employment position in question. 3) she applied for the employment position in question and was rejected. 4) the employment position remained open or was filled by a person outside the protected class to which the plaintiff belongs. We are equally suited to undertake the same task on appeal. Can determine whether the evidence supporting the prima facie case is credible. The full name of the organization was Increase Minority Participation by Affirmative Change Today of Northwest Florida. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/46C5A41BE06F195888256C21005A0D4D/$file/0116685.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants in this action are individuals who were denied entrance to a Carson City. Appellants' underlying suit claims that a court policy banning individuals who are wearing such clothing from two floors of the government building violates the First Amendment. Because Appellants have demonstrated both probable success on the merits and irreparable harm. I. Background The relevant facts are not in dispute. On the first floor of the Complex are the marriage license office. Visitors do not have to pass through security to gain access to this floor. On the second floor are two courtrooms for the Justice Court of Carson City Township. On the third floor are two courtrooms for the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Both men are members of The Branded Few motorcycle club. Both were wearing leather motorcycle clothing with patches identifying them as members of the club. They were arrested and charged with criminal trespassing. They were ordered to return to the court on March 26. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7007.html">PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA V. DISBLED AMERICAN VETS<BR></A><BR> For petitioner Paralyzed Veterans of America.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Lawrence B. Argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Ronald L. Joseph Holmes.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on the brief were <u>Stephen B. Flagg</u </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2231.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Following their arrest for being in a municipal park after it was closed. It was after 2:00 in the morning. What Plaintiffs apparently did not encounter was a sign listing the park's hours of operation. Officer Sholtis was off duty. Was wearing an authorized duty uniform. Aware that the park was closed. Compliance with this instruction was something less than ideal. The car was already occupied by several other teenagers. Informed the occupants of the car that the park was closed and advised them to go home. Tanberg was leaving the area. That he would have to turn his back on one woman to pursue the other. Tanberg's glasses were dislodged and broken during the arrest. Where the women were ultimately examined by emergency medical technicians from the <hr> Albuquerque Fire Department. The women were later transported to a police substation where they were kept. It is agreed that Ms. Sholtis were then transported to a county detention center. Plaintiffs insist that Officer Sholtis was responsible for the injury to Ms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following class:5 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B00AA912F98771F388256AB70082C6DE/$file/0050276.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: The appellants Ted Stevenson Angwin and Christine Khamis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1301.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkes & Goldings were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Shay Jr. was tried first. The thrust of the government's case was that Trenkler had built the Roslindale bomb for Shay Jr. to use against his father. Finding that it was relevant on the issues of identity. Shea was involved in a dispute with the owners of the Capeway Fish Market and she wanted the bomb to use as a means to intimidate them. The device was later attached to the undercarriage of a truck belonging to the Capeway Fish Market 3. The charges were dismissed. 4 4 and detonated in the middle of the night. Was unable to find all of the items. Testimony from government investigators and Shay Sr. established that the Roslindale bomb was a remote control. A large donut shaped magnet and several smaller round magnets attached to the box were used to secure the device to the underside of Shay Sr.'s automobile. The bomb was originally attached to the undercarriage of Shay 6 6 Sr.'s automobile directly beneath the driver's seat. It probably would have killed or at least seriously injured any individual sitting in the driver's seat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3211a.html">USA V. EDMOND<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/325A563427ADD31788256B6800042005/$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="676"></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="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1305a.html">RADIO TV NEWS DIR V. FCC<BR></A><BR> With him <p> on the briefs were <i>Richard E. Moline</i> were on the <p> briefs for appellant Freedom of Expression Foundation. Argued the cause for respondents. <p> With him on the brief were <i>Frank W. Assistant <p> Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was <i>Gigi B. Albert</i> were on the brief <p> for amicus curiae Safe Energy Communication Council.<p> <p> Before: Edwards. Petitioners1 maintain that the rules are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/68CD563519992FE288256B0A00791590/$file/0050276.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. Appellee Angwin's petition for rehearing is denied. An amended opinion is filed herewith. 15861 OPINION BREYER. District Judge: The appellants Ted Stevenson Angwin and Christine Khamis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9D6DB197E87E1F188256F780000E7E9/$file/0335081.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lambert filed a Personal Restraint Petition in the Washington Court of Appeals attacking his plea on the grounds that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and the plea was not knowingly. Failed to advise him that he should not plead guilty because he would receive the same sentence if he were convicted after a trial. (3) Romero labored under an actual conflict of interest created by his association with an indigent defense firm that was also representing Lambert's co defendant. Lambert also reasserted the allegation that his guilty plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware that the sentence set forth in his plea agreement life in prison without the possibility of parole truly meant that he would never be released. BLODGETT 17319 also concluded that Lambert was entitled to habeas relief on the ground that his plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware of the punishment he would face. Lambert cross appeals the issues on which he was denied relief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21CC3CD7B915330788256E5A00707D51/$file/0050276.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. Appellee Angwin's petition for rehearing is denied. An amended opinion is filed herewith. 15861 OPINION BREYER. District Judge: The appellants Ted Stevenson Angwin and Christine Khamis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E7289F7685CAA0A788256EBA005A6CED/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the statement was taken in violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and in violation of his entitlement to Miranda warnings under the Fifth Amendment. Bowdich's subsequent investigation led him to believe that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6159.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Factual background The relevant underlying facts of this case were outlined in detail by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) in addressing Welch's direct appeal: On February 25. She was nude and had leather straps forming a ligature around her neck that also went down her back binding her hands. The Coopers' seven month old child was unharmed and in his crib in his room. The physical and circumstantial evidence at trial supported the State's theory that [Welch] secured entry into the Coopers' home by posing as a Norman Cablevision employee [Welch was fired from his employment with Norman Cablevision prior to the day of the murder. Retained possession of his employee uniform] as there were no signs of forced entry and the Coopers' dogs were found secured in the garage. Cooper kept them when repairpersons were working who needed access to the backyard. The medical examiner testified Cooper's anal swab was positive for sperm and that she had perianal peri postmortem tears which indicated the tears were sustained immediately after or during death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1810.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/013.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016703R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 9 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-13198.man.html">JOHNSON V. ALABAMA (7/10/2001, NO. 99-13198)<BR></A><BR> Johnson was indicted and convicted of capital murder in the 1984 shooting death of Kenneth Cantrell in Morgan County. That judgment was later upheld on direct appeal and again on collateral attack by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0136p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Crockett were indicted for multiple crimes by a federal grand jury. A jury trial commenced in which all three defendants were tried together. Crockett was found guilty of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery. Was found not guilty of robbing two other banks with another defendant not involved in this appeal. Nos. 00 3617/3618/3741 All three defendants have appealed this verdict. Arguing that the evidence was not scientifically reliable and. Its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Arguing that the district court committed clear error when it granted the government's peremptory challenge against an African American who could have been seated on the jury panel. Is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Neither Rogers nor Warren are defendants in this case because they both entered into a plea agreement as part of a guilty plea to armed bank robbery. Rogers was dating Starla and he was planning on leaving for Disney World with her the next day. Rogers and Starla I This case is about a series of bank robberies that occurred in Ohio between September 1994 and November 1995. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964085.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The primary issue raised in this appeal is whether evidence of the defendant's prior acts of witness tampering were properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove the element of intent in a later prosecution for a separate act of witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). The government presented two witnesses whom it intended to have testify to the 1986 conduct. Ruling that the government's evidence of prior acts was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent for the crimes charged and that. Queen's testimony was false in respect to the purpose of his visit to Miss Isaacs and with respect to his actions. Which I find were. [which] were under inquiry. Queen argues that such evidence could only have demonstrated his propensity to commit witness tampering in this case and therefore is prohibited by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). That Queen's prior acts were relevant to whether his words to Isaacs were spoken with an intent to intimidate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/052165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. One forfeiture count and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Arguing that his motions to suppress evidence should have been granted. That there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for conspiracy and attempted obstruction of justice. Holding that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence found when the warrant was executed. The government's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel opinion vacated. He absconded after he was placed on work release. Received a report from Crime Stoppers that Tylan Lucas was staying at 2316 Ogden Street apartment 1 in North Omaha. That address was for a unit on the first floor of a house converted into apartments. They had learned that the tenant in apartment 1 was Theresa Scaife. On their arrival a man and woman were heard speaking inside. The police asked whether Lucas was in the apartment. She denied that he was. The officers told her they believed he was inside and wanted to look for him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-6258.htm">01-6258 -- SPEARS V. MULLIN -- 08/12/2003<BR></A><BR> Were cruising around Pauls Valley. They were joined at various times by Powell. Spears began driving the truck because Thompson was intoxicated. Daniels that he was going to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-13198.man.html">JOHNSON V. ALABAMA (7/10/2001, NO. 99-13198)<BR></A><BR> Johnson was indicted and convicted of capital murder in the 1984 shooting death of Kenneth Cantrell in Morgan County. That judgment was later upheld on direct appeal and again on collateral attack by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/98-1305a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard E. Moline were on the briefs for appellant Freedom of Expression Foundation. With him on the brief were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was Gigi B. Albert were on the brief for amicus curiae Safe Energy Communication Council. Petitioners1 maintain that the rules are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-3060a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Wilma A. He also indicated that the driver was upstairs in the apartment building and motioned toward the apartment being searched. 000 of counterfeit twenty and fifty dollar bills were inside a console between the driver's and passen ger's seats. In the glove compartment was a Maryland traffic ticket issued ten days earlier. The ticket named Juan Bowie and indicated he was driving a car with the same Tennessee plates. An additional $90 in counterfeit fifty and twenty dollar bills were inside the pocket of a black leather jacket in the trunk. The serial numbers on the counterfeit bills from the Pontiac's console and from the trunk were identical. This was not Bowie's first arrest for possession of counter feit money. He was driving a Chevrolet Celebrity owned by a third party. With him was James Toler. Did not have a valid driver's license. Inside the car was a bag containing a pair of Reebok shoes and Reebok socks as well as a receipt issued at 10:52 a.m. that day from a nearby Lady Footlocker store. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0323p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district court should have vacated not only his sentence. Petitioner was convicted of hiring James Earl Darby to murder Archie Moore in violation of Ohio Revised Code §§ 2903.01(A) and 2929.04(A)(2). Berry later told some friends that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DFBFA331758B76888256D3C0073F2F1/$file/0299000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Lawrence Bittaker was convicted in California state court of multiple murders and was sentenced to death. The question presented to us is the scope of the habeas petitioner's waiver: Does it extend only to litigation of the federal habeas petition. Or is the attorney client privilege waived for all time and all purposes including the possible retrial of the petitioner. The parties will immediately advise the court of any future rulings in Osband v. ER at 8 9 (underscored portion in handscript). 2 The parties spill much ink on the subsidiary question whether the district court would have had discretion to enter the protective order even if the disclosed materials lost their privilege for all purposes. WOODFORD 7641 Jurisdiction The challenged order is not a final judgment. Yet the parties agree that it is reviewable as a collateral order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The matter is closer than the concurrence of the parties would suggest. The protective order is. At that time we will know much more about the practical effect of the order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1449.html">RAMBUS V. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>William K. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Michael J. California.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Craig Thomas Merritt</u>. Argued for defendants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Christopher Landau</u>. Dixton</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>John M. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Brian C. Rambus filed numerous divisional and continuation applications based on the original 898 application at least thirty one of which have issued.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Many of these patents claim aspects of a memory technology known as Rambus DRAM (RDRAM).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>In April 1991. Rambus attended a Joint Electron Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) meeting as a guest.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Rambus officially joined JEDEC in February 1992.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>JEDEC is a standard setting body associated with the Electronic Industries Association (EIA).<a style='mso footnote id:ftn1' href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All six <p>defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States <p>District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping <p>and conspiracy to kidnap. <p>and Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to <p>distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and <p>carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these <p>challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's <p>claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the <p> </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxMzktYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4139-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC (Islander East) is a natural gas company. It appears that the challenged agency decision was arbitrary and capricious because the CTDEP (1) failed adequately to explain or support its denial with record evidence. Our consideration of section 19(d) of the NGA is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Natural gas companies are subject to the Prior to the EPACT's amendment to section 19. Which is currently pending. The FERC is required to issue such a certificate if it finds the company </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxMzktYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4139-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC (Islander East) is a natural gas company. It appears that the challenged agency decision was arbitrary and capricious because the CTDEP (1) failed adequately to explain or support its denial with record evidence. Our consideration of section 19(d) of the NGA is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Natural gas companies are subject to the Prior to the EPACT's amendment to section 19. Which is currently pending. The FERC is required to issue such a certificate if it finds the company </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/96a1487p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Three appeals presenting the same critical issue are before us. Will be stated separately. The target of the grand jury proceeding was the son of the subpoenaed witness. The son became the target of a government investigation as a result of </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DeFreitas and Saab Law Firm were on brief for appellant. This appeal presents issues regarding the scope of jurisdiction of federal courts over claims for benefits under an employee benefits plan that is subject to regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Ordinarily the appropriate judgment for a district court to order is one or the other of two kinds. If the district court determines that the out of court decisions were arbitrary and capricious. The appropriate form of order is one remanding to the out of court decisionmaker for further proceedings to decide whether the claim or claims have merit. The usual form of order is a final judgment affirming the decisions of the out of court decisionmaker. Appellees assert that </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4186.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging (among other things) that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and interview exculpatory eyewitnesses to the crimes of which he was convicted and for making promises in his opening statement to the jury that he did not keep. I. The offenses of which Hampton was convicted took place at a rhythm and blues concert held at the Chicago International Amphitheatre on the evening of December 29. While the last band was still playing. Denise M.1 were seated in the fifth row of the theater. None of the perpetrators was detained at the scene. No. 01 4186 3 Hampton was among the individuals that Powell identified. Hampton was arrested on December 31. He was eighteen years old at that time and had never before been arrested. Were charged with the attacks. Six of them pleaded guilty and were sentenced to the short periods of time they had already spent in jail awaiting trial. They were tried jointly before three separate juries. Asserting that his fees were not being paid and that Hampton and his family were not cooperating with him in preparation of the case. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/909AC10FD3D21B6588256E21005D03BA/$file/0115778.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bench lands have faster draining soils than bottom lands. Are thus entitled to a maximum water duty3 of 4.5 acre feet per acre/year ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All six defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap. Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the 924(c)(1) count. We will conclude that venue was improper in New Jersey and. We will reverse Moreno's conviction under 4 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). We will affirm the defendants' convictions on all other counts. Lopez was arrested and the fourteen kilos of cocaine were seized. Montalvo told Avendano that the seizure of the fourteen kilos and the legal fees were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/51127E931C8AAC3088256ABE0059E917/$file/9956814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The underlying facts are not in dispute. We have reviewed both tapes. All other pending motions are denied. 2 Under 21 U.S.C. § 321. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1258.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Laney and Susi were on brief for appellants. Knox and Thompson & Bowie were on brief for appellee. Specifically finding that the saw was not defectively designed. The area surrounding the anti kick fingers and the infeed rollers is open and not guarded by any physical covering. There is no need for the operator to approach the open space near the anti kick fingers and the infeed rollers. Espeaignnette was trained to operate the edger and subsequently ran it without incident for a period of two to three weeks. Espeaignnette testified that while he was crouched beside the edger. His arm was crushed. Alleging that the edger was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because of the lack of physical guards covering the infeed roller area. Measures are taken which. Would have made the event less likely to occur. Evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E190386953A21BB288256E5A00707C9E/$file/9956814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The underlying facts are not in dispute. We have reviewed both tapes. All other pending motions are denied. 2 Under 21 U.S.C. § 321. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0273p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a contract murder case with irreconcilable jury verdicts leading one defendant to be sentenced to death and another the defendant who initiated. Were charged with committing the murder of Ann Serafino and the 1 No. 03 3200 Getsy v. Santine was charged with hiring the other three defendants to kill Chuckie Serafino. Santine was sentenced to life imprisonment when a jury found him guilty of aggravated murder but not guilty of hiring Getsy to commit the murder. McNulty and Hudach were sentenced to life imprisonment after they were allowed to plead guilty. Expressed its dismay about the disproportionate nature of these inconsistent results: That Hudach received a lesser penalty than Getsy is not surprising Hudach did not enter the Serafino home. He was offered a plea bargain. Getsy was not. McNulty's case was not a case of the state's needing to secure testimony to obtain a conviction on a more culpable person. It is also troubling that Santine did not receive the death sentence even though he initiated the crime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0268p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></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-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-6361.htm">99-6361 -- SALLAHDIN V. GIBSON -- 01/04/2002<BR></A><BR> Raising the following issues: (1) four challenges concerning the jury and whether Sallahdin was deprived of due process of law and a fair and impartial jury. (2) whether the information was constitutionally adequate. (3) whether the trial court's failure to define life without parole for the jury was constitutional error. (5) whether the two aggravators applied to his sentencing are supported by sufficient evidence. (6) whether the continuing threat aggravator is unconstitutional because it is vague and applied in a standardless manner. (7) whether the jury instructions failed to inform the jury that it did not have to be unanimous to find and apply mitigating circumstances to his sentence. (8) whether Sallahdin was deprived of admissible mitigation evidence concerning steroid induced psychosis. 1291. <p> Sallahdin's most troubling challenge concerns whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence of the effects of Sallahdin's steroid use on his behavior at the time of the crime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-2001.htm">99-2001 -- U.S. V. RAMONE -- 07/21/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT<BR></A><BR> Holley argued the causes for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034445np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We will affirm. I. Because we write exclusively for the benefit of the parties who are well acquainted with the facts and procedural posture of the present action. We will recount only those matters relevant to the issues before us. Savage retrieved a tinfoil bundle of what the officers assumed was PCP from alongside the wall of a house on the corner of the intersection. While the sandwich was being made. Savage told Pantalone that he was waiting for his sandwich and did not know the fleeing man. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964890.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As follows: On pages 13 and 15 the references to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0679n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Appellant Maurice Mackey was convicted of murder and attempted murder. Mackey alleges that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. That he was denied due process by the government's use. Maurice Mackey and his girlfriend Stephanie Whitmore were at a bar known as the Office Lounge in Cleveland. Also there were off duty out of uniform Cleveland Police Officer David Smith and his friend Edward Wright. When Whitmore returned to the table she and defendant Mackey were sharing. It is undisputed that both men then drew handguns. It is also undisputed that Mackey shot Smith. Neither Whitmore nor Wright were in a position to see which man drew first. There were no other witnesses to the shooting. Neither man had any reason to know the other was carrying a firearm. Mackey was carrying his gun illegally. Smith was not in uniform. Russell coroner testified that forensic evidence showed Smith had indeed drawn his gun at the time he was shot. The gun was found gripped in his hand away from the holster. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></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-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B993FBC9FA3922E288256BBA008118D4/$file/0030306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Patterson also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Stevens informed Gow that he was familiar with the look and smell of marijuana since he had been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9921.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ruling that there was sufficient evidence to support a statutory mitigating circumstance that the trial court had failed to submit to the jury. With respect to the one claim that Bacon was denied effective assistance of counsel by the failure of his attorneys at the resentencing hearing to introduce evidence that he aided in the apprehension of his accomplice the district court ordered an evidentiary hearing. I Robert Bacon was convicted and sentenced to death for the February 1. Bonnie Sue and Glennie Clark were married in 1982 and had two children. Who was a coworker. Bonnie Sue confided in Bacon about her difficulties with Glennie and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016703.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Harvey had a due process right of access to the DNA evidence and a right to conduct testing upon the evidence using technology that was unavailable at the time of his trial and at the time his conviction became final. The district court also concluded that Harvey's claim was not in effect a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. James Harvey was convicted of rape and forcible sodomy by a jury in Fairfax County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty five years for the rape and fifteen years for the forcible sodomy. Harvey did not appeal his conviction but did file a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was rejected by the Virginia Supreme Court in 1993. Who was also convicted. There was other substantial evidence of Harvey's guilt. Code § 8.01 654(B)(2) and that Harvey's claim was procedurally defaulted. STR DNA testing was unavailable at Harvey's trial and at the time his conviction became final. HORAN even if Harvey was excluded as a contributor of the genetic material. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></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-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2107.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even though the text of this law is materially identical to one held constitutional in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. [by] the physician who is to perform the abortion. The district court concluded that the higher cost will reduce by 10% to 13% the number of abortions performed in Indiana. Some of these women will travel to states that do not require two trips. Others will forego an abortion. Some who do have an abortion in Indiana will delay that procedure until the second trimester. The judge also thought that experience in Indiana showing that the demand for abortion did not decline when information was provided on paper or over the telephone implies that the reduction in the number of abortions is attributable to higher cost (a bad reason) rather than to the statutory information (a valid reason). No. 01 2107 Indiana's statute reads as follows: 3 An abortion shall not be performed except with the voluntary and informed consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5209.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 32.1. <hr> Background(1) Schulte was born on June 9. Three of those positions are particularly relevant to our discussion. When Schulte was fifty nine. Certain other identifying characteristics of the applicants are redacted. The position for which Schulte applied in 2000 was in processing and distribution. Schulte's KSAs were deemed adequate and she was interviewed. She was not selected for the position. She initiated a claim of gender discrimination through the Postal Service's Equal Employment (1) The background facts are drawn largely from the district court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law. <hr> Opportunity (EEO) process. Who was then sixty years old. Schulte was notified in June 2002 that she was not selected for an interview because her KSA answers were deficient. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623)<BR></A><BR> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Invest Almaz also contends that the jury was not properly instructed on a claim that. Was formed for the purpose of investing the pensions and savings of the parent company's employees. Invest Almaz's intent was to build housing for the parent company's retired employees and also to sell OSB for needed hard currency in the export market. Invest Almaz came to the conclusion that it would be more cost effective to purchase the equipment from an existing plant in North America and have it transported back to Russia. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623)<BR></A><BR> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/992030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are representatives of the estates of two of the seven members of the crew. We will affirm the District Court's final judgment. The Osprey was attempting to land at the Quantico military field after a two hour and forty four minute flight from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Were killed. The accident was investigated by a U.S. The Court of Inquiry's findings were then forwarded to a superior Naval authority for review. Both the Court of Inquiry and the Endorsement agreed that the crash occurred after a flammable fluid was ingested by the aircraft's right engine as the craft was attempting to land. The Court of Inquiry stated that the right torquemeter shaft seal (the 617 seal) was installed backwards and leaked. The Endorsement stated that improper installation of the 617 seal was only one possible source of the leaked flammable fluid. Plaintiffs' theory was that the crash was caused by a transmission oil leak past a 617 seal that had been installed backwards by Boeing mechanics. They contended that Bell and Macrotech were negligent in not designing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></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-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1091.html">SAN HUAN V. ITC<BR></A><BR> </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/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/e48baf56d43f45eb88256e5a00707c16/$FILE/0015101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in professional golf and among professional golfers by agreeing to sponsor golf tournaments in accordance with PGA Tour rules and regulations.1 The sponsor defendants sought summary judgment solely on the basis that there was no actionable section 1 agreement among any of the defendants. It ruled that there was no direct evidence of such an agreement. 1 The plaintiff's claim against the PGA Tour is still pending in district court. 9806 and Toscano's circumstantial evidence failed to meet the summary judgment requirements of Matsushita Elec. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. I The Senior PGA Tour was organized to showcase senior golfers who had previously been successful on the regular PGA Tour. Current eligibility regulations provide that the 78 player field in Senior PGA Tour events will be made up of (a) the top 31 available players from the previous year's Senior PGA Tour Money List. (b) the top 31 available players from the All Time Career Money List (including money won in PGA Tour and Senior PGA Tour events) who were not in the first list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/95-4084.htm">95-4084 -- BAUCHMAN V. WEST HIGH SCHOOL (SALT LAKE CITY) -- 12/18/1997<BR></A><BR> The Religion and Speech clauses of the Utah Constitution. <p> The constitutional issues raised in this appeal are issues of acute public interest issues which evoke diverse opinions and strong emotions. Bauchman's claims focus on religious neutrality in public schools only intensifies that interest and emotion.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA10C718FC122BB6882570B5005C00E8/$file/0310437.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: John Cornelio Norris was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual abuse. We hold that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate Norris's confession as to count two and reverse his conviction on that count. I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Norris is a member of the Tohono O'Odham Indian Nation and resided on the San Xavier Indian Reservation during the time the events at issue occurred. He is also the victim's uncle. T.V. was five years old at the time. This occurrence was not unusual. She is referred to as T.V. Who was the victim of a prior sexual assault by Norris. Is referred to as T.V.'s sister. 1 UNITED STATES v. T.V.'s mother received a report from T.V.'s school that Norris may have sexually abused her daughter. T.V.'s mother took T.V. to the clinic where T.V. was examined by Dr. DaSilva Stephen examined T.V. and noticed that the perineum area was slightly red. DaSilva Stephen is not an expert in child sexual abuse. Because it was a very cold day and Norris had no electricity. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514914.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) admitting evidence that was prejudicial. We will affirm because we conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion in denying Colmar's motion to amend and admitting evidence regarding the denial of a building permit and a subsequent remedial measure. I Colmar is engaged in the business of storing coffee and other perishables. The warehouse is located in a low lying area of Miami. That is prone to flooding when it rains heavily. The warehouse was certified by the New York Board of Trade's Coffee and Cocoa Exchange Board ( </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/073B966FDADDB8E388256A37005C4BF4/$file/9950762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected. 5086 OPINION WARDLAW. Regardless of whether the defendant is charged with a drug trafficking conspiracy or otherwise charged with membership in such an organization. We hold that expert testimony regarding the general structure and operations of drug trafficking organizations is inadmissible where the defendant is not charged with a conspiracy to import drugs or where such evidence is not otherwise probative of a matter properly before the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Vallejo was stopped while driving a white Honda by Customs Inspector Ronnie Jacinto at the Calexico port of entry between Mexico and the United States. Inspector Jacinto testified that he was suspicious of the way Vallejo's hand shook when he handed over his ID and registration. Of the fact that there were no books or bookbags in his car despite Valle5087 jo's claim that he was on his way to school. Approximately 40 kilograms of marijuana were seized. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2DDF595CB19D39288256A9C005A3546/$file/0015101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in professional golf and among professional golfers by agreeing to sponsor golf tournaments in accordance with PGA Tour rules and regulations.1 The sponsor defendants sought summary judgment solely on the basis that there was no actionable section 1 agreement among any of the defendants. It ruled that there was no direct evidence of such an agreement. 1 The plaintiff's claim against the PGA Tour is still pending in district court. 9806 and Toscano's circumstantial evidence failed to meet the summary judgment requirements of Matsushita Elec. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. I The Senior PGA Tour was organized to showcase senior golfers who had previously been successful on the regular PGA Tour. Current eligibility regulations provide that the 78 player field in Senior PGA Tour events will be made up of (a) the top 31 available players from the previous year's Senior PGA Tour Money List. (b) the top 31 available players from the All Time Career Money List (including money won in PGA Tour and Senior PGA Tour events) who were not in the first list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/002358.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This civil rights action mounts a Fourth Amendment challenge to a practice of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office which the parties have labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FA9958D8FF55EFD588256E5A00707AFF/$file/9950762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected. 5086 OPINION WARDLAW. Regardless of whether the defendant is charged with a drug trafficking conspiracy or otherwise charged with membership in such an organization. We hold that expert testimony regarding the general structure and operations of drug trafficking organizations is inadmissible where the defendant is not charged with a conspiracy to import drugs or where such evidence is not otherwise probative of a matter properly before the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Vallejo was stopped while driving a white Honda by Customs Inspector Ronnie Jacinto at the Calexico port of entry between Mexico and the United States. Inspector Jacinto testified that he was suspicious of the way Vallejo's hand shook when he handed over his ID and registration. Of the fact that there were no books or bookbags in his car despite Valle5087 jo's claim that he was on his way to school. Approximately 40 kilograms of marijuana were seized. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-2123.htm">98-2123 -- U.S. V. MCHORSE -- 06/03/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p align= </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/05/992406P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Remon Lee was tried in Missouri state court on charges of first degree murder and armed criminal action. Sitting by designation. * The continuance was denied and Lee was convicted and given a concurrent sentence of life without parole on the murder charge and ten years on the armed criminal action charge. Lee claimed his trial motion for a continuance and his postconviction motion for a new trial were improperly denied. The Missouri Court of Appeals found the continuance motion was properly denied because it did not comply with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.09. The court also found the new trial motion was properly denied because Lee failed to produce evidence showing counsel was ineffective. We granted a certificate of appealability on the question of whether denial of Lee's motion for a continuance was a due process violation. Federal habeas review is not available on Lee's due process claim if the Missouri Court of Appeals </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9DDFE4693D792A588256D81005BD0C9/$file/0016521.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-1308a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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/E48BAF56D43F45EB88256E5A00707C16/$file/0015101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in professional golf and among professional golfers by agreeing to sponsor golf tournaments in accordance with PGA Tour rules and regulations.1 The sponsor defendants sought summary judgment solely on the basis that there was no actionable section 1 agreement among any of the defendants. It ruled that there was no direct evidence of such an agreement. 1 The plaintiff's claim against the PGA Tour is still pending in district court. 9806 and Toscano's circumstantial evidence failed to meet the summary judgment requirements of Matsushita Elec. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. I The Senior PGA Tour was organized to showcase senior golfers who had previously been successful on the regular PGA Tour. Current eligibility regulations provide that the 78 player field in Senior PGA Tour events will be made up of (a) the top 31 available players from the previous year's Senior PGA Tour Money List. (b) the top 31 available players from the All Time Career Money List (including money won in PGA Tour and Senior PGA Tour events) who were not in the first list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1385.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Jack B. With him on the brief was James R. Because we affirm the district court's conclusion that the '580 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Financial instruments were sold using an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A21EC81A03C5EA458825730D0057EA25/$file/0615391.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tilton is substituted for his predecessor. Who was Director of the California Department of Corrections. Rules of evidence have an impermissible retroactive effect if used in criminal trials where the conduct at issue took place before the rule of evidence was adopted. Russell Franklin Schroeder was charged under California Penal Code § 288 and § 288.2 with five counts of sexual misconduct in Santa Clara County Superior Court: three counts of committing a lewd act on his granddaughter Jessica D. After Schroeder committed the charged offenses but before he was brought to trial. The court held that § 1108 was not the type of rule contemplated by Carmell. The state later conceded the conviction for exhibiting harmful material was time barred and Schroeder's conviction on this count was reversed. 2 7986 SCHROEDER v. TILTON ANALYSIS Our de novo review is governed by the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( </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/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/d2ddf595cb19d39288256a9c005a3546/$FILE/0015101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in professional golf and among professional golfers by agreeing to sponsor golf tournaments in accordance with PGA Tour rules and regulations.1 The sponsor defendants sought summary judgment solely on the basis that there was no actionable section 1 agreement among any of the defendants. It ruled that there was no direct evidence of such an agreement. 1 The plaintiff's claim against the PGA Tour is still pending in district court. 9806 and Toscano's circumstantial evidence failed to meet the summary judgment requirements of Matsushita Elec. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. I The Senior PGA Tour was organized to showcase senior golfers who had previously been successful on the regular PGA Tour. Current eligibility regulations provide that the 78 player field in Senior PGA Tour events will be made up of (a) the top 31 available players from the previous year's Senior PGA Tour Money List. (b) the top 31 available players from the All Time Career Money List (including money won in PGA Tour and Senior PGA Tour events) who were not in the first list. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3373A25D317BE31E88256FBD005E542F/$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-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0156p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Appellant Norfolk Southern Railway Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1246.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Goodkin were on brief. Davis were on brief. The question raised is whether Congress intended to prohibit enforcement of pre dispute arbitration agreements covering employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a matter of law in all cases or at least under certain facts said to be present here. The form itself did not state which claims were to be arbitrated. Rather referred to the rules of various organizations with which Rosenberg was registering. When her employment was later terminated. Was not an adequate forum due to what the district court called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/991657P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Complications from an automobile accident have prevented Judge Gibson from reviewing this opinion prior to its being filed. The opinion is consistent with Judge Gibson's vote at conference. 1 competitor of the Brookins. IMCA is the oldest auto racing sanctioning body in the United States. Specific car rules for each racing class are established by the IMCA executive committee. IMCA's executive committee then revised the rule to require that all automatic transmissions have a functioning pump. When IMCA changed its rules in response to pressure from rival transmission manufacturers who were also IMCA sponsors. The Brookins contend that IMCA's adverse rule changes were the product of concerted action by IMCA and competing transmission manufacturers that unreasonably restrained trade in modified car transmissions.3 To prevail on this Section 1 claim. Noting undisputed evidence that there are many racing classes and many competing auto racing sanctioning bodies. The court also concluded there was no evidence that excluding the Ernie Glide and Ernie Slide transmissions from modified car races has had an actual adverse effect on competition in that market. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-7110a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that she was not selected for the Director's position in retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment right to criticize the District government. After concluding that the District was not a party to the suit. Wilburn suggested that the salary denials were 3 motivated by the race and gender of the two candidates. Were identified for interviews. Wilburn Decl. at JA 120 constituted inadmissible hearsay because the District was not a party to the suit and. Again concluding that the District was not a party and thus Graham's statements were inadmissible. Wilburn appeals both the grant of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1106.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 14. P.C. were on brief for Sea 3. Murphy was on brief for Storage Tank Development Corporation. Anderson and Latti Associates were on briefs for plaintiff. Defendants were the owner of the facility. Storage Tank's and Sea 3's third party claims against Goudreau were omitted from that trial.1 On October 9. Finding him to have been damaged in the amount of $1. I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION Clausen argues that we do not have appellate jurisdiction over Storage Tank's appeal because the district court's December 31. Amended judgment was not an appealable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></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-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414499.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The basic facts in the case are these: In May 1994. Jawaid repeatedly forced her to have oral. Norelus also said Jawaid forced her to have sex with his roommate. Valladares said she also visited the two Denny's restaurants where Norelus claimed to have been abused. Valladares said a Denny's employee told her (in Valladares's words) that 3 Jawaid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1067.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Are Puerto Rico corporations. Complete diversity of citizenship between the parties was thus destroyed. Although this fact was not called to the district court's attention at the time. Arguing 2 that summary judgment was improper and that the district court erred in granting the permanent injunction. Mita is a California corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. An amendment Codefendants John Doe and Richard Roe are fictitious names used to refer to defendants whose names are unknown at present. Said defendants are the natural persons and/or corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired. John Doe and Richard Roe are citizens and residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and are also liable to plaintiff pursuant to the allegations mentioned hereinafter. (emphasis added). 4 filed on March 9. Inc. are. Said defendants are the corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2229.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Gonz lez Mu¤oz & Qui¤ones Tridas was on brief for appellant. Alleging that he was fired because of his age. Alvarez was eventually discharged. The fundamental question in this case is whether Alvarez was fired because of his age. Alvarez was 54 years old. Alvarez was also known for his temper tantrums at work. It was his first day of work after a two week vacation. He soon discovered that there were various problems that required his attention. Was producing defective cartons. He concluded that the cardboard being used was of sub standard quality. He was also short one employee. Who was absent without explanation. When he noticed that Alvarez was operating the machine. Alvarez explained that he had to operate the machine because he was short one employee and the operator was in the bathroom. Alvarez retorted that Almeida's failure to supervise effectively was precisely the reason why the production line had continued to use inferior quality cardboard. The latter complained to him that there was a problem with the quality of the cardboard. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19949131.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of the City's transformers should have used as a coolant a mineral oil based dielectric fluid which was free of PCBs. contamination transformers. 1 However. When a transformer was in need of repair. It was Joiner's duty to open it. Joiner was diagnosed with lung In 1978 Congress banned the production and sale of PCBs because they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-8257.opn.html">N.L.R.B. V. DYNATRON/BONDO CORP. (5/25/1999, NO. 98-8257)<BR></A><BR> <EM>see</EM> 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3).</P> <P> The unilateral changes charged (and still at issue here) were: (1) ceasing of regular merit raises. The two alleged discharges in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(3) were of Floyd Robin Davis. Dynatron now seeks to have this court deny enforcement of the N.LR.B.'s orders.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-8257.opn.html">N.L.R.B. V. DYNATRON/BONDO CORP. (5/25/1999, NO. 98-8257)<BR></A><BR> <EM>see</EM> 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3).</P> <P> The unilateral changes charged (and still at issue here) were: (1) ceasing of regular merit raises. The two alleged discharges in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(3) were of Floyd Robin Davis. Dynatron now seeks to have this court deny enforcement of the N.LR.B.'s orders.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzNDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0344-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was decided by a two judge panel. The resulting settlement was the largest in 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the history of antitrust law. Defendants agreed not to tie their debit and credit products together and to pay more than $3 billion to plaintiffs in exchange for the release of any and all claims that were or could have been filed against defendants or their member banks (non parties in this action) based on the conduct alleged. Was an Visa and MasterCard are national bank card associations. The discount fee is determined by the acquiring institution. Economics demands that the discount fee be greater than the interchange fee the acquiring 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1440p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide. That the purpose or motive for the kidnapping was for companionship or sexual assault of the victim. We find that the sexual assault evidence was probative of motive as well as the victim's nonconsent to the interstate transportation and. Was admissible under rule 404(b). We will affirm. Is a naturalized citizen of the United States having immigrated to this country from Thailand in 1985. Whose nickname is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="661"></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-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011266.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Wells's defamation claims are based on statements Liddy made alleging that Wells was involved with a call girl ring while working as a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 1972. This court further held that Wells was a private individual. That while a showing of actual malice was required to recover punitive and presumed damages. She needed only to prove that Liddy was negligent in making the statements to recover compensatory damages. The jury was unable to render a verdict. Holding that no reasonable jury could find that Liddy was negligent in making the allegedly false statements. Wells was employed at the DNC offices in Washington. All seven were indicted by a federal grand jury on September 15. Liddy was charged with multiple counts of burglary. Was tried. Wiretapping charges but then claimed that he was pressured to plead guilty and lie during the district court proceedings. Liddy presented an alternative theory behind the Watergate These past events that are more completely recounted in our earlier opinion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1810.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Franco</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on consolidated brief. Eldridge</SPAN> were on brief. Because there is a reasonable likelihood that the error influenced the eventual verdict. Was eating her mid day meal at a daycare facility. She was taken to the emergency room at Charlton Memorial Hospital (the Hospital) in Fall River. She apparently refused to open her mouth and the doctors on duty did not conduct a full examination.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-14962.man.html">MAIZ V. VIRANI (6/8/2001, NO. 99-14962)<BR></A><BR> Who are Mexican citizens. Defendants do not argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the liability verdict as a whole. Plaintiffs are 53 residents of Monterrey. Most of them are members of fourteen family groups. Also plaintiffs in this case (although not participants in this appeal) are six corporations to which the individual Plaintiffs eventually transferred their interests.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9831.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 24 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/99-14962.man.html">MAIZ V. VIRANI (6/8/2001, NO. 99-14962)<BR></A><BR> Who are Mexican citizens. Defendants do not argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the liability verdict as a whole. Plaintiffs are 53 residents of Monterrey. Most of them are members of fourteen family groups. Also plaintiffs in this case (although not participants in this appeal) are six corporations to which the individual Plaintiffs eventually transferred their interests.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2054.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jaime Mendoza was convicted by a jury of (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of more than five kilograms of cocaine and (2) distribution of more than 500 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to 293 months imprisonment. We affirm. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Nina Valdez was arrested in Albuquerque. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312554.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS Appellant MCC was an Alabama construction company co owned and managed by Appellants Dewey Hamaker and Linda Hamaker. MCC's principal client was Community Bank. Who was the CEO of Community Bank. Patterson was the CEO and chairman of the board of Community Bank. Larry Bishop was Community Bank's Vice President of Construction and Maintenance and served as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964905.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 96 4905 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Price contends that it was inadmissible evidence of prior bad acts under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and that it was more prejudicial than probative under Fed. Price suggests that the district court's classification of Price as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1618.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Comey Boyd & Luskin were on brief. Were on brief. Slomovits was accepting millions of dollars in cash each week from Duvan Arboleda. The transactions were accomplished without documentation. The bills were usually in small denominations. These purchases were made at various banks by underlings (e.g. The money received in New York was transported to Rhode Island by armored car and then deposited in an account standing in the name of a controlled corporation. See 31 U.S.C.A. 5324 (West Supp. 1995) is called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0770n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With respect to all but one of the promotions he was denied. Non discriminatory reasons for its actions that were not rebutted by Campbell as pretext. The district court held that Campbell did establish a prima facie case with respect to one promotion he was denied where the University had not yet filled the position. The University concedes that these actions were adverse employment actions under Title VII. Campbell is the only African American in the HVAC shop. A white employee was also given a verbal warning for insubordination toward his supervisor. 3 No. 05 4528 Campbell v. Who was not a PFOC employee at the time. Because for each it was his second offense. Whereas Howard received a verbal warning because this was his first offense. A Caucasian employee was disciplined for the same issue [of violating the lunch break policy] </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/00-6333.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-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1343.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A jury found Fairfield liable and judgment was entered in her favor. Which was approximately half of the amount McInnis requested. Fairfield is one of only two large employers in the area. McInnis worked as the assistant to the Vice President of Sales and (1) We are taking the evidence and any inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to McInnis because she prevailed before the jury. McInnis was promoted to Property Manager at Fairfield's site in Pagosa Springs. Thull was transferred to Las Vegas. McInnis was instructed to contact Thull while on a business trip in Las Vegas. Thull telephoned McInnis and told her he was returning to Fairfield in Pagosa Springs. Told him she could not take his harassment anymore and that she was going to tell someone at Fairfield. Gray contacted McInnis by email and told her that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-6135.htm">00-6135 -- HOLLANDER V. SANDOZ PHARMA CEUTICALS CORP. -- 05/10/2002<BR></A><BR> It rejected the Hollanders' arguments that it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining claims and that the defendants' removal petition was untimely. The federal district court ruled that the Hollanders' expert testimony regarding the causal connection between Parlodel and intracerebral hemorrhages lacked the necessary reliability and was therefore inadmissible. <u>See</u> <u>Hollander v. (3) the court abused its discretion in ruling that the testimony of their experts was not sufficiently reliable to be admissible. We further hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Hollanders' expert testimony was not sufficiently reliable and that the court did not err in granting summary judgment to Sandoz. We agree with the Hollanders that the federal district court should have dismissed their claim against Sandoz. To be taken in two 2.5 mg doses per day. <p> Parlodel is manufactured by Sandoz. The drug's active ingredient is bromocriptine mesylate. Approximately 9 million women in the United States have taken it for that purpose. <u>See</u> <u>Siharath v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-4338.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CASTRO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Circuit court judges have the authority to appoint special assistant public defenders (SAPDs) and approve their compensation terms for which Metropolitan Dade County issues payment upon receipt of a court approved bill. Sepe arranged to have Gelber appoint Arthur Massey. Most of Gelber's conversations with Takiff regarding illegal conduct were tape recorded. Under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0758n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One Beacon was the insurer of Ryan Construction. The tower was designed by Central Tower ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/93-1110a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom John Haven Chapman and Christine McLaughlin were on the briefs. Raposa were on the briefs. McKenna were on the briefs. With whom David Cosson was on the briefs. General Counsel at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Were on the joint briefs. Kraskin were on the joint briefs for intervenors Rural Telecommunications Group. For three years from the date of the upcoming LMDS auction.1 The FCC explains that its Order is designed to prevent LECs from acquiring LMDS licenses in order to preempt competition in the local tele 1 The FCC's challenged eligibility restriction applies to both local exchange carriers and cable operators. Provides both local exchange service and is the nation's third largest cable operator. Promulgated while the FCC was devising the current regime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The five defendants were arrested. Were The defendants raised the following additional issues on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct regarding the testimony of a government witness and during closing argument. Guerrero were also charged with conspiring to deliver to Cuba </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Glynn and Landry was on brief. The facts of the underlying incident are of little relevance to the issue on appeal. The Commonwealth's iteration of the collateral source rule is fairly typical. That compensation received from a third party unrelated to a tortfeasor defendant (the collateral source) will not diminish an injured party's recovery from that tortfeasor. If evidence of payment from a collateral source is relevant to some other material issue in the case. The question raised but not clearly answered by the case law is whether. It is axiomatic that. Whether damages in a tort suit are mitigable by payments originating with a third party depends. It is equally axiomatic. If the federal evidentiary rule is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-8594.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLS (4/10/1998, NO. 96-8594)<BR></A><BR> Facts</CENTER> </P> <P> The Millses were officers and majority shareholders of a Medicare services provider. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts true based on the evidence. Some detail is necessary because of the harmless error and sufficiency of the evidence issues that are presented.</P> <P><CENTER>A. <EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Medicare home health care system has three players. Are entitled only to return of their costs in exchange for their services. Aetna Life Insurance Company was First American's intermediary during most of the time period relevant here.</P> <P> Providers generally receive biweekly payments in an amount based on quarterly figures of how many patients the provider has visited and how much each visit cost. This true up for years as far back as 1990 was incomplete at the time of trial.</P> <P> Jack brought a businessman's outlook to this cost based system. Believing that Aetna was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-9529.htm">00-9529 -- ST. ANTHONY HOSPITAL V. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE -- 08/28/2002<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-3032.wpd.html">ARAMBURU V. BOEING CO.<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. (4) discriminatory discharge on the basis of his carpal tunnel syndrome.(2) Boeing and Whitesell contend that Aramburu was discharged for failure to maintain proper attendance. Larry Whitesell was Aramburu's supervisor. Aramburu's employment relationship was governed by a collective bargaining agreement between Boeing and the International Association of (1) Aramburu complains that the district court did not clearly identify the undisputed facts upon which it relied and did not specify which portions of his proffered evidence it was rejecting in considering the summary judgment motion. Many of those objections are not supported by materials which the court may consider or are otherwise inappropriate. The court will make no attempt to specifically explain its resolution of the parties' numerous disputes regarding the uncontroverted facts. It is the task of the district court to determine if the party bearing the burden of proof on an issue at trial has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as identified by the substantive law to warrant sending the issue to the factfinder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-4338.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CASTRO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Circuit court judges have the authority to appoint special assistant public defenders (SAPDs) and approve their compensation terms for which Metropolitan Dade County issues payment upon receipt of a court approved bill. Sepe arranged to have Gelber appoint Arthur Massey. Most of Gelber's conversations with Takiff regarding illegal conduct were tape recorded. Under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0944p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is before the court for rehearing in banc to clarify the proper standard for a jury charge in a pretext case alleging age discrimination.[fn1] Defendant Insurance Company of North America ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021105.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a case in which we affirm the disbarment of an attorney. The motion charged that these violations occurred while Morrissey was on probation. Finding Those rules have been renumbered and slightly. Or using any false document making a false statement. 1 IN RE: MORRISSEY 3 that Morrissey had been adjudged to have violated the conditions of his probation by violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and condition no. 3 of the terms of his probation which required that he should </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043756p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is proper to submit that question to a jury. Alleging that when he was a member of the Elizabeth. Perkins Auguste asserted that she was entitled to qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment on that ground. Her motion for summary judgment was denied on the basis that whether she was entitled to qualified immunity depended on a disputed issue of material fact­whether she had Monteiro ejected from the meeting on the basis of viewpoint. The jury's verdict is based on sufficient evidence. 3 I. We note that it is not clear what rights. Was that right limited to legal errors made at trial and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict? Qualified immunity is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-8594.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLS (4/10/1998, NO. 96-8594)<BR></A><BR> Facts</CENTER> </P> <P> The Millses were officers and majority shareholders of a Medicare services provider. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts true based on the evidence. Some detail is necessary because of the harmless error and sufficiency of the evidence issues that are presented.</P> <P><CENTER>A. <EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Medicare home health care system has three players. Are entitled only to return of their costs in exchange for their services. Aetna Life Insurance Company was First American's intermediary during most of the time period relevant here.</P> <P> Providers generally receive biweekly payments in an amount based on quarterly figures of how many patients the provider has visited and how much each visit cost. This true up for years as far back as 1990 was incomplete at the time of trial.</P> <P> Jack brought a businessman's outlook to this cost based system. Believing that Aetna was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></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-6.gif" ALT="657"></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-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-4023.htm">00-4023 -- BULLOCK V. CARVER -- 07/23/2002<BR></A><BR> We reemphasize that the ultimate inquiry when deciding whether an attorney performed in a constitutionally deficient manner is not whether the counsel's actions can be considered strategic. Counsel's actions may be considered objectively reasonable. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1966p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The refusal to deal is said to have become a group boycott. Is said to have become a co conspirator. 1998. 5 siding distributors were concerned that the entrance of a new price cutting competitor could destabilize the market and substantially cut into their profit margins. The principal players in this drama are plaintiffs Joseph Rossi. Minor roles were played by defendants Wood Fiber Industries. We believe that the record is sufficient to enable Rossi to survive summary judgment on the antitrust claims as to Standard. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the area of concerted refusals to deal teaches that not every situation in which a distributor is cut off at the behest of his competitors constitutes a group boycott entitled to per se treatment. Legitimate efforts by manufacturers to impose reasonable rules limiting intra brand competition would be outlawed and the beneficial effects such actions have on inter brand competition would be lost. Are not implicated here. Typically because it is difficult for the plaintiff to demonstrate that what the manufacturer or supplier did was inconsistent with independent action or that the claimed conspiracy makes economic sense. </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//mar96/94-9131.opa.html">JOINER V. GENERAL ELEC. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Joiner v. All of the City's transformers should have used as a coolant a mineral oil based dielectric fluid which was free of PCBs.<a href= </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3177_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Thompson died following a struggle with police officers who were trying to handcuff him while taking him into custody after he led them on a high speed automobile chase in an attempt to evade apprehension on the west side of Chicago. Resulting at least in part from a </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2141.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dwyer & Collora were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Thomas Shay Jr. was found BARBADORO. The defendant responded by arguing that his statements were unreliable and should be disregarded. The Explosion Two officers from the Boston Police Department Bomb Squad were sent to the home of Shay Jr.'s father. While the officers were examining the box. The Government's Case The government's trial theory was that Shay Jr. conspired with a friend. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951874P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Excluding evidence tending to show that a third party might have set the fires. He also claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Which was owned The Honorable Richard H. Was destroyed by two deliberately set fires that occurred approximately two weeks apart. There was no evidence of forced entry. There was no sign of forced entry. Flaherty and Gregory Lee Melina were indicted by a grand jury and each charged with two counts of aiding and abetting arson. Flaherty was convicted for both fires. Melina was convicted only of involvement in the second. His appeal is proceeding separately. The evidence at trial suggested that Flaherty was in severe financial trouble and set the fires to collect insurance proceeds. Which was his only source of income. Was not generating a cash flow sufficient to cover expenses. Flaherty learned that significant expenses would have to be 2 paid before the building could open and that the city council had denied his permit applications. There was evidence to show that he left his guests for nearly two hours shortly before the fire was discovered. </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/mar96/94-9131.opa.html">JOINER V. GENERAL ELEC. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Joiner v. All of the City's transformers should have used as a coolant a mineral oil based dielectric fluid which was free of PCBs.<a href= </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8C2C5200D56706588256E4C007C2532/$file/9956361.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration ( </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/022833P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This case is before us for the second time. Marvin is a family owned company that manufactures. The genesis of this lawsuit was Marvin's use. Marvin had used Penta products successfully for years until environmental concerns were raised about the active ingredient. The four month jury trial was bifurcated. The jury found that PPG had given Marvin a warranty of future performance and that such warranty formed part of the basis of the bargain between the parties and was incorporated into their agreement. The jury found the warranty was breached and awarded damages: $53.6 million for out of pocket costs. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0112A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 7 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1593.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-2030.htm">96-2030 -- SCOTT V. DORSEY -- 01/27/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is . Therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner William Scott was charged by indictment with four sexual offenses involving his granddaughter Melissa. He was convicted by a jury in New . Have occurred on or about August 6 and 7. A mistrial because of jury disagreement was declared with regard to the same charges alleged to have occurred on August 22. Petitioner was sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of New . 2254 alleging that he was denied his right to due process because of trial errors and ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner argues that he was denied his due process right to . Petitioner argues that the evidence was . Petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and was the victim of cumulative error. <p> The merits of all of the issues raised in petitioner's habeas proceeding have previously been ruled on by the Court of Appeals of New Mexico. <u>See</u> <u>Scott</u>. </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.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-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-6310.htm">99-6310 -- ROMANO V. GIBSON -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR> What degree of mental torture or conscious serious physical abuse preceding death is necessary to satisfy Oklahoma's especially heinous. Is required to investigate and present psychiatric evidence and evidence of a defendant's early childhood during a capital sentencing proceeding. That the State does not need to appeal separately the district court's adverse procedural bar determination in order to reassert that defense on appeal. <p> <strong>I.</strong> <strong>FACTS</strong> <p> Romano and Woodruff were convicted of killing a jeweler. Romano was serving a prison sentence and was only free on weekends. A critical issue in the case was how long Sarfaty had been dead before a friend first discovered his body. The State's theory was that the murder occurred on Saturday. Romano and Woodruff do not have alibis for at least part of that time period. <p> Evidence supporting the State's theory included the fact that Sarfaty usually went to a bar. The last time he was seen there was when he left the club about 2:00 A.M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6066.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Christopher Ward appeals from his conviction after a jury trial for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Ward's sentence is affirmed in all other respects. Other relevant facts will be provided as needed in our discussion of the issues. The trailer was sixteen feet long and approximately eight feet wide and was located on Indian land in Norman. Four people were inside the trailer: Ward. All four individuals were injured and transported to the hospital. A red rubber hose with brass fittings on each end which were blue in color. Tiger was also indicted for opening and maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1). She was eventually sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. Ward was sentenced to 327 months imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $11. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-6364.htm">99-6364 -- MITCHELL V. GIBSON -- 08/13/2001<BR></A><BR> Mitchell's conviction was not constitutionally infirm. Mitchell's conviction and sentence are set out in the opinion disposing of his direct criminal appeal. Will be recited in this opinion in detail when necessary to our consideration of the individual issues before us. Mitchell was adjudicated a juvenile offender for the rape of a twelve year old neighborhood girl and was incarcerated in a juvenile correctional facility for approximately three years prior to the events at issue here. He was released on December 23. Was a college student who worked and volunteered at the Pilot Recreation Community Center. The Center served disadvantaged youth and was located near Mr. Scott was working at the Center with its director. Ross was leaving. Mitchell was wearing a rust or reddish colored stocking cap. Scott's car was gone and that the Center was not locked properly. Mitchell was standing in the doorway. Biggs that the Center was closed because the bathrooms were being cleaned. There were no cars in the parking lot and the building was empty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug12/02-41655-CV1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which we reproduce below: Carlton and Latanza Gaddis were stopped at a street intersection when a postal employee drove his government vehicle into theirs. Who was pregnant. Arguing that there was no allegation of a conflict of interest among the Gaddises nor of any prejudice to Courtlin's interests. An infant or incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules. 5 and guardian ad litem fees are not included in § 1920. Bean's claimed expenses were for his legal work as an attorney on behalf of Courtlin. § 2412(a)(1) is the applicable provision governing costs to be taxed against the nonprevailing government in an FTCA case. 5 Section 1920. The court fully considered the government's arguments regarding the taxation of guardian ad litem fees and determined that it was bound to follow our post Crawford Fitting precedents in Dickerson v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/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-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-7064.html">REZI P. FORSHEY V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> For respondent appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-3223.htm">98-3223 -- KOCH V. KOCH INDUSTRIES INC. -- 02/14/2000<BR></A><BR> Is the second largest privately held corporation in the United States. KII was founded by Fred C. Those members of the Simmons family involved in the instant suit are cousins to the four Koch brothers. <p> In 1966 and 1967. He was never a KII employee and did not place a representative on the board until March of 1981. <p> In 1980. Frederick and the Simmons Family either to buy back some or all of their stock or to take KII public and have the now dissident shareholders sell their stock on the public market. The SPA contained two relevant warranties by KII: The first provided that all KII financial statements disclosed to the selling shareholders had fairly presented KII's financial condition and were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Would have increased the Plaintiffs' valuation of KII stock at the time of the SPA. The Defendants named in the action were KII. Which alleged the Defendants failed to disclose that certain expenses were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3222a.html">USA V. CHILDRESS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/01-1079a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Martin R. Feore Jr. and Scott Dailard were on the brief for amicus curiae Paxson Communications Corporation. With him on the brief were Jane E. Andrew Jay Schwartzman and Harold Feld were on the brief for interve nors. The local television ownership rule now on review allows common ownership of two television stations in the same local market if one of the stations is not among the four highest ranked stations in the market and eight independent ly owned. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F1761D1C279963388257069004D941B/$file/0273543.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concurrence by Judge Gould *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Garcia Ramirez asserts that the BIA and IJ impermissibly applied the continuous presence requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/640383B03D8AAB3688256B6B007C09FD/$file/0099014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district judge erred in holding that the Washington State Supreme Court decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Brady v. Because we hold that the state court's decision that there was no Brady violation in 3084 Benn's case constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. The bodies were still warm and bleeding. There was a bullet hole in the couch in the living room consistent with someone having been shot while on the couch. There were also bloodstains that matched Dethlefsen's blood type on both the couch itself and on a newspaper that was on it. The medical examiner testified that Dethlefsen was shot in the chest while on the couch because only the chest wound would have allowed him to move around and end up on the floor where the police found him. There was a .45 caliber handgun on the floor between the two bodies and a baseball bat next to Dethlefsen's body. There was also blood on one of Benn's boots with spatter patterns consistent with Benn's having shot Nelson in the head while standing next to his body. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-40657-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Border Patrol Agent David Sipe was convicted after a jury trial of using excessive force and causing bodily injury in the arrest of Jose Guevara. Were patrolling the border between the United States and Mexico. Were also Two other BPAs. Both pairs of agents were alerted that a sensor alarm had been triggered in the area. A second sensor was triggered approximately twenty A group of twelve to fifteen aliens who were minutes later. 1 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 attempting to move through the area had triggered the sensors. of the aliens was Jose Guevara. One Because it was still dark. Fled to the arrizo an area of heavy reeds that were both dense and taller than the aliens and agents. What happened next is disputed. They testified that Guevara did not resist or yell out and Sanchez claimed that that his scalp was cut by one of the blows. he saw Guevara squatting alone and motionless just before Sipe struck Guevara at least twice with a flashlight and that Guevara was bleeding after the blows. Who was slightly farther away from Sanchez. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/05-3027a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for the appellant. Were on brief. Circuit Judge: Deon Douglas (Douglas) was indicted on one charge of possessing with intent to distribute (PWID) five grams or more of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii). Arguing that it was relevant to Douglas's knowledge and intent regarding the pending PWID charge. Three MPD officers The facts are taken from evidence adduced both during the April 24. Because he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/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-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct18/03-40657-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Border Patrol Agent David Sipe was convicted after a jury trial of using excessive force and causing bodily injury in the arrest of Jose Guevara. Were patrolling the border between the United States and Mexico. Were also Two other BPAs. Both pairs of agents were alerted that a sensor alarm had been triggered in the area. A second sensor was triggered approximately twenty A group of twelve to fifteen aliens who were minutes later. 1 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 attempting to move through the area had triggered the sensors. of the aliens was Jose Guevara. One Because it was still dark. Fled to the arrizo an area of heavy reeds that were both dense and taller than the aliens and agents. What happened next is disputed. They testified that Guevara did not resist or yell out and Sanchez claimed that that his scalp was cut by one of the blows. he saw Guevara squatting alone and motionless just before Sipe struck Guevara at least twice with a flashlight and that Guevara was bleeding after the blows. Who was slightly farther away from Sanchez. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1234.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bockius LLP</U> were on the brief. Snyder LLP</U> were on the brief. Inc.</U> were on the brief.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11E9362566D5ACC788256A99007A9F03/$file/9930135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are hereby amended. The amended opinions are filed simultaneously with this order. Jimenez Recio and Lopez Meza were arrested for their part in transporting a truck load of marijuana and cocaine. Arce agreed to cooperate with the police and contacted other members of the drug conspiracy to have someone sent to retrieve the truck. Both argue the district court should have granted their motion for judgment of acquittal after both the first and second trials under United States v. In which we ruled that a defendant could not be 9613 charged with conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs when the defendant was brought into the drug scheme only after law enforcement authorities had already intervened. Defendant's involvement was prompted by the intervention. Two individuals on their way to Guam to deliver methamphetamine were arrested. Because Cruz was lured into taking over the delivery through a government </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1093.html">MAGNIVISION, INC. V. BONNEAU COMPANY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D5585DB988C3E61088256E5A00707C09/$file/9930135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are hereby amended. The amended opinions are filed simultaneously with this order. Jimenez Recio and Lopez Meza were arrested for their part in transporting a truck load of marijuana and cocaine. Arce agreed to cooperate with the police and contacted other members of the drug conspiracy to have someone sent to retrieve the truck. Both argue the district court should have granted their motion for judgment of acquittal after both the first and second trials under United States v. In which we ruled that a defendant could not be 9613 charged with conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs when the defendant was brought into the drug scheme only after law enforcement authorities had already intervened. Defendant's involvement was prompted by the intervention. Two individuals on their way to Guam to deliver methamphetamine were arrested. Because Cruz was lured into taking over the delivery through a government </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI0MzJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2432_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled because (1) he is actually innocent of the offense for which he was convicted. (3) he was incapable of filing his state post conviction motion pro se because the library of the federal prison in which he was incarcerated did not contain New York State case law. (2) Doe did not exercise reasonable diligence during the period that he seeks to have tolled for attorney incompetence. (3) Doe is not entitled to equitable tolling on the basis of the purported inadequacies of the library of the federal prison in which he was incarcerated because he has not established that the library lacked materials adequate to prepare his state post conviction motion. We requested supplemental briefing on whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002324A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts underlying this dispute are as follows. At the center of this case is Rule 11(c)(1)(A). Or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. The requirements of the rule are straightforward: The party seeking sanctions must serve the Rule 11 motion on the opposing party at least twenty one days before filing the motion with the district court. Sanctions may be sought only if the challenged pleading is not withdrawn or corrected within twenty one days after service of the motion. Motions have been disallowed as untimely when filed after a point in the litigation when the lawyer sought to be sanctioned lacked an opportunity to correct or withdraw the challenged submission. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982035.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was general manager (GM) of HRC. Argues that she created a genuine issue of material fact on her Title VII claim when she put forth evidence that demonstrated that some of her superiors on the HRC Board of Trustees (Board) favored her termination because they lamented the loss of a particular greens superintendent who had publicly stated that he was not pleased to work for a woman. She alleges that the district court based its summary judgment ruling on an affirmative defense that was improperly raised. Because we determine that summary judgment was appropriate. Are expressed in the light most favorable to her as the nonmoving party. 255 (1986) (stating that an appellate court reviewing a grant of summary judgment is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non moving party and must draw all reasonable inferences therefrom). Brinkley was promoted to the position of GM of HRC. Board members asked the staff whether anyone would have difficulty working with Brinkley in that capacity. Where she was the owner/manager/treasurer of a restaurant in Salisbury from 1976 1989 and reported a salary of $30. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B8CB9CF09D126AA888256A9C005AC892/$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-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/90-6020.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. CALDERON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Customs Agent Richard Johnson received a tip that a suspicious vessel named <i>What's Up</i> was being towed into Tortola Marina in Key Largo. Appellants and others were arrested and indicted on various charges including conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine from the Bahamas. Cocaine was smuggled into the United States aboard the <i>What's Up.</i> Appellants participated in the importation and distribution conspiracy in different roles and. Those portions were presided over by Judge Thomas E. Appellants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 188 months to 336 months. We will discuss the facts relevant to appellants' claims in greater detail in conjunction with our discussion of each of their assertions of error.<p> II. Garcia contend that the evidence presented by the government was insufficient to sustain their convictions. Thus was insufficient to impose conspiratorial liability. Not a single conspiracy as charged in the indictment and that Calderon was prejudiced by that variance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1695.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attorney was on brief for appellee.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0384p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mary Anne Flynn was found murdered and raped in her Cleveland home in August 1984. Was employed at Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital. A window in the basement appeared to have been forcibly opened. One of the window sills was missing. The cause of death was found to be asphyxia by cervical compression. She was strangled to death. Spermatozoa and other bodily fluids were found in her mouth and vagina. There were wood chips and slivers from the basement window sill in the bedroom and on her body. Only one of them was inconsistent with the victim's hair. Was on the bed and the corpse. The only pieces of physical evidence from the crime scene that were even potentially linked to the perpetrator were the bodily fluids found in Flynn's corpse. Apanovitch's co worker Dawson Goetchius supposedly told police that Apanovitch had told him that Flynn was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0227p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was denied. Bell Page 2 We have now heard Cone's appeal three times because the United States Supreme Court has twice reversed our decisions granting relief. We will affirm the district court's original judgment denying Cone's petition. The details of Cone's brutal crimes are not material to the issues we address in this appeal. They are fully set forth in Cone v. The details of this case's procedural history are material to the issues before us on this appeal and we recount them now. The jury found four aggravating factors: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CB1C1565A7DB48D88256CAA005F7F17/$file/0150164.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to a term of seventy eight (78) months. Whether (1) the Defendant's due process and compulsory process rights were violated when the Government removed witnesses from the United States before Defense Counsel could interview them because Ramirez Lopez failed to demonstrate either bad faith by the Government or prejudice to his case. (4) whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324 is unconstitutional in light of the U.S. (5) whether evidence of mens rea as it relates to death is a required element in finding guilt under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv). Defendant Appellant Ramirez Lopez was arrested with fourteen others who had crossed the border into the United States from Mexico through the mountains of eastern San Diego County. RAMIREZ LOPEZ was taken to the hospital for frostbite and subsequently interviewed. Denying that he was the guide. They stated that their guide had abandoned them or that they did not have a guide. Were Ramirez Lopez's Due Process and Compulsory Process Rights Violated When the Government Removed Witnesses from the United States Before Defense Counsel Could Interview Them? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/90-6020.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. CALDERON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Customs Agent Richard Johnson received a tip that a suspicious vessel named <i>What's Up</i> was being towed into Tortola Marina in Key Largo. Appellants and others were arrested and indicted on various charges including conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine from the Bahamas. Cocaine was smuggled into the United States aboard the <i>What's Up.</i> Appellants participated in the importation and distribution conspiracy in different roles and. Those portions were presided over by Judge Thomas E. Appellants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 188 months to 336 months. We will discuss the facts relevant to appellants' claims in greater detail in conjunction with our discussion of each of their assertions of error.<p> II. Garcia contend that the evidence presented by the government was insufficient to sustain their convictions. Thus was insufficient to impose conspiratorial liability. Not a single conspiracy as charged in the indictment and that Calderon was prejudiced by that variance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></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="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR> A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0745n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harris and Schwentker were romantically involved. Owners who were loyal to him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct15/03-40657-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Border Patrol Agent David Sipe was convicted after a jury trial of using excessive force and causing bodily injury in the arrest of Jose Guevara. Were patrolling the border between the United States and Mexico. Were also Two other BPAs. Both pairs of agents were alerted that a sensor alarm had been triggered in the area. A second sensor was triggered approximately twenty A group of twelve to fifteen aliens who were minutes later. 1 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 attempting to move through the area had triggered the sensors. of the aliens was Jose Guevara. One Because it was still dark. Fled to the arrizo an area of heavy reeds that were both dense and taller than the aliens and agents. What happened next is disputed. They testified that Guevara did not resist or yell out and Sanchez claimed that that his scalp was cut by one of the blows. he saw Guevara squatting alone and motionless just before Sipe struck Guevara at least twice with a flashlight and that Guevara was bleeding after the blows. Who was slightly farther away from Sanchez. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/022859p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Degree to Which the Expert Testifying Is Qualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8. That there are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR> A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6282.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kevin Young was convicted of first degree murder for shooting and killing Joseph Sutton during a robbery at the Charles Steak House (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is clear that this extremely probative testimony requires that we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. Where his opinion goes too far is in its accusations of fraud on the court. While his explanation for the omission of the Sultan deposition from the official record before the court is possible in the narrowest sense. Sultan's deposition was taken by trial counsel for respondent. Was not included with the evidence submitted as part of Bell's motion for summary judgment. A genuine mistake was made. One which was not realized until a different attorney looked at the case. To conclude otherwise is to disbelieve sworn testimony by an officer of the court. When in fact it was submitted to the panel prior to oral argument as part of the abeyance motion. We believe it is appropriate to use our inherent equitable powers to expand the record on appeal to consider the deposition. Where through error or accident material matters are omitted or misstated. While some circuit courts have held that Rule 10(e) allows the inclusion of material the district court did not consider. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/951554P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These defendants are Jesse Rouse. Who was acquitted by the jury. The children are referred to by initials in the text of this The jury acquitted the defendants of the remaining charges. The appellants raise twelve allegations of error in the trial of the case.1 We grant relief on two issues: (1) refusal to allow expert opinion testimony by a court appointed psychologist that the children's evidence and testimony became tainted by suggestive influences to which the children were subject in the investigation and trial. 11) whether the defendants were denied due process right to fair trial when the Department of Social Services. The appellants are entitled to a new trial on these grounds. Sufficiency of the evidence is not an issue. An examination of the record establishes that the medical evidence was inconclusive as to abuse or abuse by the defendants and that the children's reports of abuse may have been tainted by the influence of social workers and law enforcement officials who investigated and prepared the government's case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024525.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were found guilty by a jury in the Northern District of West Virginia of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). West was also convicted The conspiracy charged in Count 2 of the first indictment was dismissed by the trial court. Jackson was also convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848 (Count 1). I. Andrew Charles Jackson was a drug dealer in Martinsburg. By this time Jackson was under investigation by law enforcement authorities. Jackson discussed in the presence of both Nelson and Patterson that Miller was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0856p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Retailers who market wallpaper by providing sample books and showroom displays have feuded with dealers who sell at a discount through toll free </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-16626.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. HALL (11/20/2002, NO. 01-16626)<BR></A><BR> Seized Computer in Florida</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/005186.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether. These records should include but are not limited to: All business checks. We will refer to the dramatis personae as the target (the target of the investigation) and the attorney (the target's attor ney who is the witness under subpoena). 2 The attorney produced several documents. The government again requested the documents under its initial subpoena and advised the attorney that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2279.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. He is serving a life sentence.</P> <P> DiBenedetto presents two claims. Arguing that the determination of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on these issues is in error on de novo review and. That it was contrary to. DiBenedetto's first claim is that the trial court's refusal to allow him to present evidence that he believed would undermine the key witness for the prosecution violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. His second claim is that the prosecution's testing. Of physical evidence that may have been exculpatory violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. When the state court does not decide the federal constitutional claim.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The petitioner DiBenedetto was charged with the 1986 murders of Frank Chiuchiolo and Joseph Bottari. The bodies of the two victims were found in a park in Boston's North End. DiBenedetto was tried jointly with codefendant Louis Costa. Was tried separately. Costa was also convicted of first degree murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-16626.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. HALL (11/20/2002, NO. 01-16626)<BR></A><BR> Seized Computer in Florida</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1556.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 21. P.A. were on brief. P.A. was on brief. Smith testified that she was considered to be a de facto manager who. Bond nonetheless honored Smith's request and assured her that her position was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></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-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2345_054.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Greg Davis and six other co conspirators were charged in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Hankton was subsequently sentenced to a term of 300 months in prison. While Davis was sentenced to 210 months. Both men challenge the district court's application of the guidelines to their sentences and claim that they are entitled to be re sentenced in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Clarence Hankton and Gregory Davis were prominent members of the MCs. The gang's various criminal undertakings were coordinated 2 Hankton and Davis were also charged with the knowing and intentional use of a communication facility (i.e. Hankton was charged with four separate counts of distribution of cocaine base. Davis was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Were not limited to. Is produced by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7D39B96C9A7D7DE288256E6D005B806D/$file/0330310.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are called upon to decide whether Federal Rule of Evidence 413 permits the admission of propensity evidence UNITED STATES v. H.H. and several of her underage friends were drinking at an abandoned house on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in Lame Deer. A federal grand jury handed down a single count indictment charging Sioux with sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2).1 He was arrested on May 28. In the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison knowingly . . . (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct. Sioux never alleged that the admission of such evidence was improper because it involved another act of sexual misconduct that had occurred subsequent to that for which he was to stand trial. Suggesting that Sioux's motion was untimely and. That the admission of the evidence was proper. Or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/51BFE3F68EDF896E88256B0300792F66/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D18A788F59F35E388256B2E00638BD0/$file/9999022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Robert Garceau was convicted of a double homicide in California state court and sentenced to death. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Robert Garceau was convicted in Kern County. Their bodies were not found until six months later. There was no physical evidence linking Garceau to the murders. These drug partners testified that Garceau had confessed to them that he had killed the Bautistas because he was worried that they would reveal his drug activities to law enforcement authorities. Greg Rambo was shot to death. Garceau was charged with and convicted of Greg Rambo's murder and sentenced to 33 years to life imprisonment. Susan Rambo assisted in digging the hole in her backyard in which the dresser containing the Bautistas was buried for six months. Patricia Shepard was Whittington's girlfriend. She and Whittington cleaned up the bloodstains at the crime scene the day after the bodies were removed. The only 17250 witness that does not appear to have had a hand in any of the three murders was Wayne James. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60F75E598B71606D88256AD40078B022/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E69249F4AB1A711188256E5A00707DA6/$file/9999022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Robert Garceau was convicted of a double homicide in California state court and sentenced to death. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS Robert Garceau was convicted in Kern County. Their bodies were not found until six months later. There was no physical evidence linking Garceau to the murders. These drug partners testified that Garceau had confessed to them that he had killed the Bautistas because he was worried that they would reveal his drug activities to law enforcement authorities. Greg Rambo was shot to death. Garceau was charged with and convicted of Greg Rambo's murder and sentenced to 33 years to life imprisonment. Susan Rambo assisted in digging the hole in her backyard in which the dresser containing the Bautistas was buried for six months. Patricia Shepard was Whittington's girlfriend. She and Whittington cleaned up the bloodstains at the crime scene the day after the bodies were removed. The only 17250 witness that does not appear to have had a hand in any of the three murders was Wayne James. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/97-5587.man.html">DUNN V. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N (10/25/1999, NO. 97-5587)<BR></A><BR> The court held on summary judgment that the description of the pilots as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE07E4E01DB1935C8825729D007EC8C4/$file/0615886.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the district court is asked to order outright disclosure. The burden of proof on the party seeking to vitiate the privilege is preponderance of the evidence. We conclude the appellees in this case have failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing to support a finding that the crime fraud exception applies. Leiber et al. and Capitol Records et al. (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/98-2087.htm">98-2087 -- U.S. V. CHARLEY -- 05/07/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116626.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> B. Seized Computer in Florida Further investigation revealed that the screen name </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1079a.html">SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Gottfried argued the cause for petitioner.<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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6067.htm">01-6067 -- TELECOR COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. -- 09/10/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements. <p> Pay phone service providers ( </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/01/04/993122P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was organized to build power plants and provide power for its members. Which is the subject of this litigation. The methodology Basin used for determining the cost of AVS II power was set out in Exhibit A of the contract. The Rural Utilities Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3150F2CB96356DB088256E5A00707CEF/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ5MDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4909-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) rejected a demand for trial by jury on the ground that all remaining claims were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/97-5587.man.html">DUNN V. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N (10/25/1999, NO. 97-5587)<BR></A><BR> The court held on summary judgment that the description of the pilots as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B181A3BD78A945088256E5A00707D47/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024194.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It asserts that the error was harmless and that Curbelo's convictions should therefore be affirmed. Every court to have addressed the question has held to the contrary. A superseding indictment was returned on February 6. A jury of twelve was impaneled for Curbelo's trial.1 The jurors were sworn shortly after 4 o'clock that afternoon. The trial was adjourned for the day. Not his cross examination court was adjourned early because of an air conditioning problem in the courthouse. The court informed the parties that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/033266P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is Hispanic. Griffith complains that he was suspended and then denied retraining. As some district courts have concluded. The third step in the McDonnell Douglas analysis must be modified </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=98-1163.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Col¢n & Martinez were on brief. P.C. were on brief. Julio Elvin Ruiz Cintr¢n (Ruiz) was driving a Toyota automobile westerly along a two lane road in Puerto Rico. Three other passengers (all minors) were killed. Were citizens of mainland states). Were more prejudicial than probative. The defendants will be required to pay the full amount of these damages if the judgment becomes final. DISCUSSION The Daubert questions in this case are complex and implicate four interrelated pieces of evidence: (1) the toxicology results contained in the autopsy report. Although such a witness may offer opinions that are </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/07/02/053729P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dennis Skillicorn was convicted in Missouri state court of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The 1983 Chevrolet Caprice in which they were traveling broke down on I 70. A garage in Kingdom City was unable to fully repair the car's mechanical problems. Richard Drummond was driving by and saw the stranded motorists. Skillicorn told Drummond that they would have to disable the car phone. Skillicorn claimed that Nicklasson told him that Nicklasson was going have to </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/C00F063B75958F1488256E5A00707BB5/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </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.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003056.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs have frequently sought damages from affiliated corporations. Plaintiffs with claims arising from non WARN Act sources of law against debt laden or bankrupt corporations have occasionally attempted to sue the corporations' major secured lenders. On the theory that the lenders have exercised such control over the corporations that veil piercing is appr opriate. The question before us is whether the for mer employees of Component Technology (CompTech). Have set forth sufficient evidence to cr eate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether . Requires us to consider not only the prerequisites for parent/subsidiary liability in the WARN Act context (as will be shown. That 2 jurisprudence is apposite here). Courts have been extr emely reluctant to hold lenders liable for their borrowers' actions. Some version of the </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1066.html">FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>James B. With him on the brief was <u>Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were <u>John G. Also of counsel on the brief were <u>Rory J. With him on the brief were <u>Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Perry M. Also on the brief was <u>Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>James W. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <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://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE43C9BB7916256288256A76007A56DB/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4253.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The breach of contract and conversion claims against Kenton and Lori Tuttle were dismissed. The matter was tried to a jury which returned verdicts against William and Charlene Tuttle on all four causes of action. Arguing that (1) the fraud claims were not ripe. (5) prohibited the Tuttles from offering evidence of the Ellsworths' farming practices and (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. After the supplemental briefs were filed. With respect to certain jurisdictional facts which should have been established in the district court. </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/June2004/034044p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Poellnitz argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that he committed a state crime. (2) the delay between 1 the filing of the supervised release petition and the supervised release violation hearing was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-3068a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Was convicted of multiple felonies relating to the possession and distribution of illegal narcotics. The principal issue on appeal concerns the testimony of an FBI agent who stated at trial that the government </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0019n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was diagnosed with depression and anorexia nervosa. She was hospitalized in April of 1999 and thereafter remained in 2 No. 04 2370 outpatient care for one month. Jennifer was placed in a treatment center in Arizona. Jennifer was placed in a facility in Wisconsin. Received a tip that Plaintiff was shipping packages without paying for them. Siegel determined that there was no record of payment for six packages shipped to 3 No. 04 2370 Wisconsin. To which the unpaid shipments were delivered. Plaintiff admitted that he recognized the address as that of the hospital in which his daughter was currently residing for treatment purposes. Siegel informed Plaintiff that UPS did not have customer counter receipts for the shipments and that the lack of receipts indicated that Plaintiff had not paid for the shipments. Siegel informed him that it was too late. Langdon informed Plaintiff that he was suspended pending the investigation. Langdon informed Plaintiff that he was terminated. Langdon denies that he was involved in the decision to terminate Plaintiff. 4 No. 04 2370 After his termination. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-3123c.html">USA V. SCHAFFER ARCHIBALD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs </p> <p>were <i>Donald C. With him on the briefs were <i>Joe R. </p> <p>Caldwell. We find sufficient evidence in the </p> <p>record from which a reasonable juror could have concluded </p> <p>that Schaffer violated the Meat Inspection Act. Be </p> <p>cause consideration of whether the jury verdict has sufficient </p> <p>evidentiary underpinnings is necessarily fact intensive. When allegations of illegality </p> <p>were first levied against then Secretary of Agriculture Al </p> <p>phonso Michael Espy (". He was subsequently nominated to </p> <p>that position on December 24. </p> <p>the <i>E coli</i> outbreak was a matter of major importance within </p> <p>the Department.</p> <p>In response to the public concern. These policies were direct </p> <p>ed at preventing contamination and instructing the public as </p> <p>to the proper handling procedures for meat and poultry. </p> <p>Along with other affected companies. At which they </p> <p>were entertained by B.B. USDA officials were at vari </p> <p>ous stages in the process of developing and implementing </p> <p>initiatives that would seriously impact the business of Tyson </p> <p>Foods. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-3123a.html">USA V. SCHAFFER ARCHIBALD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs <p> were <i>Donald C. With him on the briefs were <i>Joe R. <p> Caldwell. We find sufficient evidence in the <p> record from which a reasonable juror could have concluded <p> that Schaffer violated the Meat Inspection Act. Be <p> <p> <p> cause consideration of whether the jury verdict has sufficient <p> evidentiary underpinnings is necessarily fact intensive. When allegations of illegality <p> were first levied against then Secretary of Agriculture Al <p> phonso Michael Espy ( </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.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-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3565.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants are the principal manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Thus is no longer a party). HFCS is a sweetener manufactured from corn and used in soft drinks and other food products. There are two grades. Is bought mostly by producers of soft drinks. Are small. That the conspiracy was implemented the following year. Billions of dollars in treble damages are sought. We do not know whether the plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief. The suit was brought in 1995 and though an enormous amount of evidence was amassed in pretrial discovery. The soundness of this conclusion is the basic issue presented by the appeal. This statutory language is broad enough. That is. If a firm raises price in the expectation that its competitors will do likewise. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is part of Alabama's state implementation plan (SIP) approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The complaint alleged that there were more than 8. The reason with broader application is that all of the alleged violations at the Colbert Plant are within the forgiveness zone of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)'s so called </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/01/04/982549P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Security guard Richard Heflin was killed during an armed robbery of the Lindell Bank & Trust in St. Holder were charged and convicted in separate jury trials for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2. Allen was sentenced to life in prison on Count I and received a sentence of death on Count II. I. Background Holder was a regular customer of the Lindell Bank & Trust. Five hundred dollars was automatically deposited to his account each month from a legal settlement Holder obtained after losing the lower portion of one leg in a train accident. Allen and Holder were also seen together on several other occasions during the ten days leading up to the armed robbery. The night before the armed robbery two vans were stolen for use as the first two getaway vehicles after the robbery (Holder's mother's car was to be used as the third. The ballistics evidence showed that both rifles were discharged during the robbery and a total of sixteen shots were fired inside the bank. The remaining two could have come from either rifle. Was on fire and two park workers helped to extinguish the flames. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992494A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 6 after first indented quotation the citation for So Lo Foods is corrected to begin </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410325.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 15) denying Brown the right to be present and to cross examine witnesses after this Court remanded the case for construction of the record. 2 1 The facts of this tragic case are straightforward and are taken from the testimony of the trial witnesses and from the last of Brown's three confessions. Which was recorded and presented to the jury by audiotape. Was a part time postmistress in the small town of Fleming. She was working in the Fleming Post Office on the morning of November 30. When she was stabbed to death. Was working in the Post Office with Gaglia between 8:00 a.m. and about 9:30 or 9:45 a.m. that day. As he was exiting the Post Office. Washington heard the man say his name was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/995755.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case compels us to revisit the use of the medical vocational guidelines in the regulations 2 promulgated under the Social Security Act to establish that there are jobs in the national economy that a claimant can perform when the claimant has both exertional and nonexertional impairments. At least one of which (left eye blindness) is a nonexertional impairment under the regulations. We will reverse the order of the District Court and remand the case with instructions to return the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. This work was physically strenuous. During his recovery Sykes was unable to work for nine months. The final blow to Sykes's employment as a tractor trailer operator came when a bungee cord snapped as he was securing metal to his truck and ruptured the globe of his left eye. The ALJ concluded that Sykes's depression was not severe. He also concluded that Sykes was not disabled because there was other work in the national 4 economy that Sykes could perform. He argued that the ALJ erred in relying exclusively on the grids in assessing whether there were jobs in the national economy that Sykes could perform when his impairments were both exertional and nonexertional. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004926.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Michael Barile was convicted of making materially false statements to the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because we conclude that the district court erred in its determination that prior statements of a key government witness were consistent. Were indicted by a grand jury in May 1999. All four defendants were employed by the Patient Monitoring Division of Datascope Corporation. Gugnani was president of Patient Monitoring. Sikand was vice president of operations. Milo was director of engineering. Datascope's cardiac monitors are complex. Software driven devices that are continuously being improved. Must demonstrate that the medical device is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-3123a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Donald C. With him on the briefs were Joe R. We find sufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could have concluded that Schaffer violated the Meat Inspection Act. Be cause consideration of whether the jury verdict has sufficient evidentiary underpinnings is necessarily fact intensive. When allegations of illegality were first levied against then Secretary of Agriculture Al phonso Michael Espy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0039p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Richey was arrested. Because constitutional errors have undermined our confidence in the reliability of Richey's conviction and sentence. Who was elsewhere at the time. Was alone in the apartment. He was interviewed by the police chief. Richey was arrested for arson and gave a tape recorded interview to the police. Who were joined by Cryer and a prosecutor. Although acknowledging that he was intoxicated and therefore did not remember much of what happened early in the day on June 30. Because gasoline and paint thinner were stored in an unlocked greenhouse across the street from the apartment building. The owner of the greenhouse was unable to determine whether any gasoline or paint thinner was missing. He eventually withdrew his insanity plea and was adjudged competent to stand trial. The heart of the indictment against Richey was the charge of aggravated felony murder. An aggravated felony murderer must have </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-11012.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012)<BR></A><BR> They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/98-3123c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Donald C. With him on the briefs were Joe R. We find sufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could have concluded that Schaffer violated the Meat Inspection Act. Be cause consideration of whether the jury verdict has sufficient evidentiary underpinnings is necessarily fact intensive. When allegations of illegality were first levied against then Secretary of Agriculture Al phonso Michael Espy ( </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-11012.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012)<BR></A><BR> They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></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-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-8125.htm">97-8125 -- COLETTI V. CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL -- 01/05/1999<BR></A><BR> She alleges the trial court improperly denied her the opportunity to introduce deposition testimony as substantive evidence because the deponents were present at trial and available to testify. Coletti contends the trial court should have imposed sanctions for Cudd's alleged failure to timely and adequately comply with the court's discovery orders. <p> <strong><center>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Ms. Coletti was formerly an at will employee working as an administrator for Cudd. Cudd supervisors visited the Rock Springs office in an attempt to cure certain problems the company was having with operations there. Coletti she was placing her on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984060.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Darrell Young (Defendants) were indicted by a federal grand jury for their role in the shooting death of Ricky Samuel. 1 a Government 1 All three Defendants were named in a four count indictment. Pabellon and Fowler (Appellants) were found guilty on all counts and sentenced to four life sentences. Fowler contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Ricky Samuel was indicted by a federal grand jury for his role in a large drug conspiracy in Spartanburg. The transaction was recorded and observed by local and federal law enforcement agents. No arrests were made. The transaction was recorded and observed by local and federal law enforcement agents. Pabellon and Freeman were arrested shortly after making the exchange. Pabellon was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury. Freeman was charged with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Was not charged with any violation stemming from his participation in the February drug transaction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-2493_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All defendants were charged with conspiring. Allen was in charge of the operation. Before the drugs were resold. Crack cocaine was referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/89-5669.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. STARRETT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. All six appellants were convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for violating the conspiracy provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7082a.html">HENDRY ANNE P. V. PELLAND FRANCIS J.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-8181.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BROWN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. We conclude that Brown and Calhoun have shown no reversible error and affirm the convictions. <i>See</i> 11th Cir.R. 36 1. The government must prove that Mullis took part in a financial transaction with money he knew was obtained illegally and with the intent to promote the illegal activity or with intent to disguise the source of the money. <i>See</i> 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-8181.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BROWN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. We conclude that Brown and Calhoun have shown no reversible error and affirm the convictions. <i>See</i> 11th Cir.R. 36 1. The government must prove that Mullis took part in a financial transaction with money he knew was obtained illegally and with the intent to promote the illegal activity or with intent to disguise the source of the money. <i>See</i> 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BC847243323E2F808825725D005D2DC5/$file/0610473.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Calloway for racketeering and various predicate crimes is pending trial. Defendants are alleged to be members of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/89-5669.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. STARRETT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. All six appellants were convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for violating the conspiracy provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-13536.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. RENICK (11/20/2001, NO. 00-13536)<BR></A><BR> Renick ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1307.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/03-3058.htm">03-3058 -- CLARDY V. MCKUNE -- 03/02/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner appellant Thomas J. Clardy asserts (1) that the Kansas state court erred in denying him access to records to prove that the child's mother was about to lose custody and had a motive to fabricate the story of sexual abuse because she saw Mr. . (2) that the Kansas state court erred in ruling that evidence that the child was undergoing counseling for previous sexual abuse. Which might have accounted for her knowledge of a type of sexual activity. Was barred by application of the state's rape shield law. <p> On appeal in federal court. Clardy's second argument as presented in his brief on appeal would have a constitutional dimension. We hold that Clardy's argument is without merit. We affirm the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0592n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith was arrested by undercover police officers in June of 2001 when he attempted to regain possession of his lost gym bag that contained powder cocaine. Smith was arrested again after he was shot in the arm by an unknown assailant. Smith was thereafter indicted and convicted of attempted possession of more than 500 grams of powder cocaine with the intent to distribute. (2) erred in concluding that there was The Honorable Robert H. The gym bag incident An off duty Columbus police officer was walking home in June of 2001. The bag contained two bricks of a white substance that he suspected was crack cocaine. The bag was turned over to the police department's narcotics unit following the discovery of the drugs. There were several papers in the bag that listed Smith's name. The officers decided that Smith was the probable owner of the bag and attempted to contact him. One of the officers called Smith on an undercover cellular telephone and pretended to be someone who had found the bag and who was now seeking a reward for returning it to the owner. 2 No. 04 3422 U.S.A. v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1374a.html">OMNIPOINT CORP V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-13536.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. RENICK (11/20/2001, NO. 00-13536)<BR></A><BR> Renick ( </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/00-3411.htm">00-3411 -- U.S. V. ADAMS -- 11/27/2001<BR></A><BR> Adams was found guilty by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/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="639"></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="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0186p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A published book by defendant Asante Kahari1 that describes the exact counterfeit check scheme for which Kahari was found guilty. One chapter of Kahari's book describes how to execute this very scam. 1 The defendant was born Aaron Fraser. The sole legal issue preserved for appeal is whether the district court committed reversible error in admitting portions of the book's text into evidence in violation of Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). We affirm the judgment of the district court because The Birth of a Criminal was admissible to prove Kahari's intent. Kahari asked Hugg if he could send her some checks because he was moving and did not have a bank account. She told him that she did not have a bank account. Two of the checks were payable to Hugg's mother. Two were payable to Hugg's sister. The total amount of the checks was $38. Hugg testified that she did not know that the checks were counterfeit. Even though Harris knew that he was married to another woman. He was charged with one count of bank fraud. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0743p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the order of the district court dismissing the appellant's sexual discrimination and harassment claims and assessing the jury costs against her. We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing the balance of the case. Is an investigator in the Pittsburgh Area Office of the EEOC.[fn1] Although she was hired in 1974 by that office. They have been dismissed from the action. Nelson and Butler are the director of the EEOC's Pittsburgh Area Office and the director of the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office. Butler is Nelson's superior. Nelson is Spain's superior. Have a history of passing over her for promotions to GM 13 and GM 14 level positions in favor of allegedly lesser qualified male African American applicants. It is undisputed that in 1985. The crux of Spain's sexual discrimination and harassment claims is that over the years rumors developed in the Pittsburgh office that Spain and Nelson were having an affair. Or leaving the office.[fn4] Spain charges that because it was improper for Nelson to solicit the loans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1107p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court based its holding on the Providers' claim that the Pennsylvania statute is preempted by the Hyde Amendment. We conclude that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is owed deference regarding her interpretation of the Hyde Amendment mandates. Because the Secretary has determined that reporting requirements are permissible under the Medicaid Act. Because the second physician certification requirement pursuant to § 3215(c) is contrary to a federal regulation. It is also invalid to the extent that it goes beyond the scope of that regulation. The purpose of the Medicaid program is to help provide medical treatment for low income people. Establishment of a Medicaid program is voluntary on the part of each state. While states are not obligated to participate in the Medicaid program. Each state that chooses to do so is required to develop its own state plan which must be approved by the Secretary. Certain categories of medical care are mandatory. While other categories of care are optional. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0465p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Defendant/Appellant Jerome Hadley was charged in a single count indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was found guilty by a jury following a two day trial. Was sentenced to a 262 month term of imprisonment. Defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing under the rule announced in United States v. Were hosting a few friends and relatives at their residence on North Moore Road in Chattanooga. The dispatcher further advised Officer Williams that the 911 call was on an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. The lawsuit was filed on March 10. Judgment was entered on June 24. The six plaintiffs who were released from confinement during that interval are Danny Chadwick. 190 F.3d at 1283.The other five plaintiffs were still confined when judgment was entered in the district court but. Some of them have been released since then. All eleven of the plaintiffs are jointly represented in this appeal. Their counsel does not argue that any of those who were released after the date of the district court's judgment are. Our references hereafter to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1259p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commonwealth contends that Yohn is not entitled to habeas relief because no constitutional error occurred when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania became involved in a trial court ruling on the admissibility of evidence. We will affirm the order of the district court granting the writ of habeas corpus. We will vacate the order of the district court to the extent that it directs that the wiretap evidence be excluded and leave that ruling to the state court upon retrial. I. The relevant facts are not disputed. Andrew Kollar was shot and killed by a single shotgun blast outside his home in Old Zionsville. Lynn was recruited to gain entry into Kollar's house under the guise of car trouble. Lynn was to restrain Kollar at gunpoint while Southerland and Yohn entered the house and searched for money. Was shot in the back. The deal was conditioned upon the accuracy of Southerland's role in the incident as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0002p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This criminal prosecution pertains to one of six defendants who were tried on charges of conspiracy to conduct and participate in a Detroit based racketeer influenced and corrupt organization.1 Appellant Jack W. Tocco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-8899.ma3.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974230.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Blanding's and Derrick's convictions (as well as Taylor's and Gordon's) were eventually overturned by this court on appeal on the grounds that the intervening Supreme Court decisions in McCormick v. Rendered defective the jury instructions that were given at their trials. All three cases were remanded to the district court for retrial. Are now deceased. Neither of these individuals is a party to this appeal. Was concluded in October of 1994. All of these materials were to be surrendered by December 1. That the government take every scrap of paper that they have. The district court concluded that the government's argument that the drugrelated audiotapes produced in March of 1995 were not relevant or discoverable under Brady 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://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/964108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Starr is to investigate and prosecute matters </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BEA81FE4FF2BE3788256CFC00578B47/$file/0135593.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Placed an anonymous telephone call to law enforcement officials directing them to the locations of the bodies of two children whom McClure was ultimately convicted of killing. THOMPSON 4573 ing there was no breach of the duty of confidentiality and no actual conflict of interest. The body of Carol Jones was found in her home in Grants Pass. A gun cabinet in the home had been forced open and a .44 caliber revolver was missing. Age 10 were also missing. Were found in the blood in the home. McClure was arrested in connection with the death of Carol Jones and the disappearance of the children. Which were in locations more than 60 miles apart. McClure was indicted for the murders of Carol Jones and her children. McClure was found guilty of all three murders and was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences with 30 year minimums. His conviction was affirmed without opinion. The substance of the conversations between McClure and Mecca are the subject of significant dispute. Mecca recorded his account in notes that he wrote immediately after the children's bodies were discovered. </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/06a0317p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claim that they were denied promotions to the rank of sergeant on account of their race and gender. Alleging that they were discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/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-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1863p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PA 19106 Attorneys for Appellant *Judge Lewis heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion due to illness. We must examine whether there is any basis to justify the introduction into evidence of an anonymous note that was plainly hearsay. Who was convicted of conspiracy to commit and commission of Hobbs Act robbery. I. The facts which appear not to be disputed are that between 9:00 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. on September 12. The assailants were armed with handguns and attacked the delivery man as he entered the store. There was evidence that the two men who robbed the agency were William Robinson and Terrance Stewart. Mitchell was indicted on the theory that he was the third conspirator and operator of the getaway car. Police officers found the beige car where the 911 caller had stated it was. Is not challenged on appeal.1 The other note. Which is the subject of this appeal. This is the other car. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1938.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnston & Aronson was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found on the basis of a comprehensive stipulation of the undisputed facts and after hearing oral argument1 that Malden was not liable to make any additional contributions to the Fund nor to reimburse the Fund for payments previously made in connection with the distribution of vacation benefits to Malden Employees. Are the trustees of a multiemployer employee benefits plan known as the International Ladies Garment Workers Union Eastern States Health and Welfare Fund. Benefits distributed by the Fund are funded by employer contributions and by investment income earned on employer contributions. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. Which is with the words of the statutory provision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1589.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Linda Steinman were on brief. This is a tale of an American icon. Faigin's case against Kelly was tried to a jury over a 19 day span and resulted in a defendant's verdict. The founders' game plan was to furnish contract negotiation services through Lustig Pro Sports. He was a shareholder. He a was a principal in L & F. Was thought to be the most lucrative in the league's history. Faigin noted that Lustig's investment advice and other business decisions were largely self serving. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-8899.ma3.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044716p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He presses three arguments: (1) his conviction must be vacated because his confessions should have been suppressed as evidence because they were made outside the six hour period in 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) and after the arresting officials violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) by unnecessarily delaying in bringing him before a federal magistrate judge. (2) remand is required because (a) he was sentenced prior to the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Because we believe that the first contention is governed by our decision in Government of the Virgin Islands v. We discern no error in the District Court's determination that Corley's confessions were voluntary. The delay in presenting him to a federal magistrate judge beyond that provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) will not result in suppressing his confessions. He is not entitled to a remand because the District Court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory. Federal officials identified Johnnie Corley as a suspect in the robbery and were later informed of an outstanding bench warrant from a state court for him on a matter unrelated to the robbery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0018p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ensuing litigation over which entities were responsible for what share of the considerable investigation and cleanup costs has traced an eight year oscillation through and between various levels of the federal court system. These adversaries have amassed a prodigious factual record. We have already comprehensively detailed many of the pertinent factual disputes elsewhere. A brief overview of the litigation is in order. Aroclor 1242 is the most prevalent PCB. The MDEQ and EPA determined that KRSG companies were responsible for the bulk of the Aroclor 1242 contamination at the NPL site. All four KRSG companies have not disputed that they are liable and responsible parties within the meaning of CERCLA. They have. KRSG alleged that these factory owners were partially responsible for the PCB contamination at the NPL site such that they owed KRSG contribution for the costs of the investigation and future clean up. The Allegan facility was in operation from the early 1900s until 1989. Did not resolve the more salient question of whether these PCBs actually found their way to the Kalamazoo River such that they contributed to the overall pollution for which KRSG was responsible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/032280P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted by a jury of five counts of aggravated sexual abuse of his son and daughter. Was between the ages of four and six during the period over which the offenses were alleged to have occurred. Was between the ages of one and three during this time. There was no eyewitness testimony from third parties. A physical examination of M.T.B. revealed some evidence that was consistent with. Contending that three separate constitutional errors were made during his trial. That she believed that she was in a position to give an opinion as to his truthfulness or untruthfulness. She had formed an opinion that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/99-3344.htm">99-3344 -- U.S. V. LAHUE -- 06/18/2001<BR></A><BR> Ronald LaHue were convicted by a jury for violations of the Medicare Antikickback Act ( </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0025n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shows me this is crack cocaine that's possessed for the purpose of distribution. These are 20 dollar rocks on the street. </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/F8B414C76D42798E88256E5A00707D26/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1781p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claims that the Commission's conclusion that he was affiliated with an organized crime family was not supported by any evidence. That an organized crime affiliation is not enough. We will reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. I. Erasmo Gambino is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fairton. He was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin. Gambino was also convicted of use of a telephone in a conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin. He was sentenced to a 34 year term of imprisonment and a $95. Gambino was cited for attempted escape from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. He was later found guilty and given a 30 day disciplinary segregation as punishment. Gambino was entitled to a parole hearing. The United States Parole Commission conducted a parole hearing and Gambino was denied release.2 The Hearing Panel assigned Gambino a Category Six Offense Severity Rating because he had been convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 but less than 999 grams of pure heroin. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0831p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawrence Seidman ( </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0060p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants in this action were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. VACATE his sentence and REMAND the same for reconsideration in light of the district court's erroneous belief that it did not have discretion to depart from the applicable sentencing guideline. All of whom are African American. Was formed by Keylen Tremell Blackmon. Washpun were all purchasers and/or sellers of the drugs obtained by Blackmon. The details of the charged conspiracy will. Four of the individuals were also charged with specific instances of possessing or distributing the illegal drugs. A superseding indictment was filed on July 10. In which another individual not involved in these appeals was added to the conspiracy charge. A second and final superseding indictment was issued on October 7. The new conspiracy charge omitted those defendants who were originally indicted but who had since pled guilty. The alleged ending date of the conspiracy was changed from July of 1996 to June of 1997. </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/1998/02/96-6089.htm">96-6089 -- FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP. V. UMIC INC. -- 02/18/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm in part and reverse in part. <p> I. <u>BACKGROUND</u> <p> Universal was a savings and loan located in Chickasha. 1821a(a) (requiring this transfer). <p> The conduct that is the basis for this action occurred several years earlier. Universal held a large quantity of Treasury bonds that were declining in value as a result of rising interest rates. Made a presentation to Universal's board of directors on the use of futures and options to hedge against the risk of further interest rate increases. <p> Employing a hedging strategy is not unlike buying an insurance policy. The investor pays a small fee to the person who agrees to accept the bond if it is offered at the fixed price. Universal signed a customer agreement specifying that the account was to be used only for hedging. Denney and UMIC were aware that Universal was subject to federal regulations limiting speculative trading by insured institutions. In order to work even more closely with Denney and UMIC. <p> While Universal's account was open. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1088.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee.</P> <BR WP= </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054887np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over the challenges to the convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. 2 I.1 In October 2001. At the top was Melvyn Waldron. In the middle tier of the conspiracy were the </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/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-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B4E4FCBCAFCB268888256E5A00707D0E/$file/9916952.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Under which receipt is presumed upon proof of mailing. Whether the federal and state common law mailbox rule applies to an ERISA plan's benefit decisions is a question of first impression in this Circuit. As Schikore was appealing a denial of benefits under her retirement plan. Over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1291 (stating that courts of appeals have jurisdiction solely over appeals from </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054887p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over the challenges to the convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. At the top was Melvyn Waldron. In the middle tier of the conspiracy were the </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3442.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Francesca Alvaro. With her on the brief were Neil A.G. Garcia had not proven that her actions were involuntary and therefore dismissed Ms. I An adverse action is an official action taken by a federal agency and imposed on an employee. Such official action is by statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the Board. An aggrieved employee can appeal such an action to the Board for a determination as to whether the action was proper. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) (2000). It deals with what is known as a constructive adverse action. Although a resignation is ostensibly a voluntary separation from employment. It is possible that an employee can be coerced into resigning by actions of the employing agency. Such an involuntary adverse action is known as a constructive adverse action. Garcia alleges that the constructive adverse action was prompted by a violation of her rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace. It is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/991907.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from an order of the District Court vacating an arbitrator's award. Kayser exercised his contractual right to demand arbitration and was awarded substantial damages. We will affir m. Both of which are currently the subject of circuit splits. The first question is whether contracting parties may opt out of the FAA's default vacatur standards and fashion their own. Because the LCOA is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/001975P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Daniel Lewis Lee was convicted of murder in aid of racketeering. A sentence of death was imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3594. The defendants were accused of robbing and killing a gun dealer. Lee and Kehoe were convicted by a jury of the three capital counts on May 4. Attorney Paula Casey informed the court on May 10 that she would like to withdraw the death notice in Lee's case but that she was uncertain whether she needed approval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) under its death penalty protocol.1 The district court recessed the proceedings until 3 p.m. so that Casey could contact DOJ. Was promulgated by DOJ shortly after passage of the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994. The evaluation form is reviewed by the Attorney General's Review Committee on Capital Cases. Whose members are appointed by the Attorney General. Who then decides whether the government will seek the death penalty. The same procedure is used when a prosecutor wishes to withdraw a previously filed death notice. The Attorney General is the ultimate decisionmaker on the question of whether the government will seek the death penalty or withdraw a previously filed death notice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </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/6A9AA31F4AAD1F6888256AEF005A9B4A/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </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/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-6.gif" ALT="635"></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-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB9077B4175DA40088256AE6007F48B3/$file/9916952.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Under which receipt is presumed upon proof of mailing. Whether the federal and state common law mailbox rule applies to an ERISA plan's benefit decisions is a question of first impression in this Circuit. As Schikore was appealing a denial of benefits under her retirement plan. Over which we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1291 (stating that courts of appeals have jurisdiction solely over appeals from </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2121.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have combined these separate appeals solely for the purpose of disposition. Summers argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and Mr. Was later found in the Vista Montano Apartments located a short distance from the bank. The Vista Montano Apartments are adjacent to the Pinnacle View Apartments. She requested that the complex's maintenance workers </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0431n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant and his company were primarily engaged in commercial construction and by the 1970s had begun working on projects in the Middle East. Jr ( </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/1999/05/97-1095.htm">97-1095 -- MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/11/1999<BR></A><BR> GIT's evidence of several of its categories of damages was insufficient. Its claims on behalf of its lower tier subcontractors were premature. This court cannot determine whether any parts of the jury's award were for allowable categories of damages supported by sufficient evidence. The contract price was roughly $9.3 million. GIT's central theory is that its plan to complete the project before the deadline displeased MK. The contract allowed MK to do so if GIT was not prosecuting the work with a diligence that would ensure its timely completion. The subs were demanding payment from GIT. GIT was still involved in litigation with Robinson and had not settled with or paid Bogue or GA Western. Arguing that GIT had changed its damage theory just weeks before trial and was using previously undisclosed documentation. <p> Twelve days before trial. GIT's Alleged Discovery Violation <p> MK argues that GIT's supplemental damage disclosure was subject to mandatory exclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).<a href= </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2108.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Wistow & Barylick Inc. was on brief. Cavanagh & Cooney were on brief. She was twice falsely reassured (whether in honest error is not clear) that one had been called. They could not locate a pulse and discovered that the decedent's airway was blocked. Resuscitative efforts restored the decedent's heart to a normal rhythm and he was transported celeritously to a nearby hospital. Two are in the forefront. The centerpiece of the defendant's appeal is the assertion that the evidence did not forge a causal link between the failure promptly to summon an ambulance and the ensuing death. Since New Jersey law is less than explicit on one key issue that concerns us. As long as these signposts are legible. Our task is to ascertain the rule the state court would most likely follow under the circumstances. This kind of predictive approach is among our conceptions of law itself. 461 (1897) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034777.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> STAMPER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was convicted by a jury for committing a sexual act on a person physically incapable of declining participation. While the admission of the testimony of two victims of prior sex offenses is governed by Rules 413 and 414 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Assuming that the testimony was admissible. This Court defers to the balancing engaged in by the district court under Rule 403 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011359.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment because of her sex and age and in retaliation for her complaints of such discrimination. I. Ethel Hill was hired by Lockheed as an aircraft sheet metal mechanic in 1987. Thomas Prickett was Lockheed's program manager in charge of the contract field teams and Archie Griffin was the East Coast senior site supervisor for Lockheed. They were rarely present at the individual military jobsites. Hill and the other aircraft mechanics were directly supervised by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BAA25A9642E5CC2E88256CEF0078ADD5/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced with the attached dissent. FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that UNITED STATES v. Bowdich received information from an unnamed source that a person known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3084.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Weidner was the president. Although the government's case was largely circumstantial. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the jury instructions were adequate. Weidner was the president. Wittig was an established Capital City Bank customer with substantial assets: a March 2001 financial statement on file with the bank reported a net worth of $33.921 million. He was the chairman of the board. Weidner that he was not capable of making this investment. Wittig of the Arizona project and asked if he was interested. Wittig responded that he thought that the investment was a great opportunity but had other projects that he wanted to pursue instead. Weidner did not have the $1.5 million he needed to make the investment. Adding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31F0472AE8A769E588257013007DAC1B/$file/0235971nographic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the constitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time. We also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain Appellants. Emily Maloney were also named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 5952 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE All persons who were arrested by the City of Seattle and its police agents or its affiliated police agents on December 1 and 2. Pursuant to the defendants' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. were convicted of a variety of federal offenses stemming from an affirmative action fraud scheme they perpetrated regarding federally funded road construction projects. I. Because the defendants are challenging their convictions. The FDOT was contractually obligated to ensure that at least 12% of the USDOT's funds ultimately went to 2 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3055.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reynold Moore was convicted in Wisconsin state court of first degree intentional homicide as a party to a crime. Which was denied. The district court determined that the five claims not raised in the petition to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin were procedurally defaulted. Was planning to steal an expensive piece of electrical cord from the plant. Who was at coop 9 to take readings from a machine. Moore No. 02 3055 3 went and listened to the tape and was told that the voice was that of Monfils. Monfils left his post at coop 7 and was confronted around 7:35 a.m. by a group of workers near a water fountain between coops 7 and 9. Monfils was attacked and seriously injured. That Dale 1 Basten and Michael Johnson were carrying something. Johnson was walking backwards. The two men were five to six feet apart. Kutska told Piaskowski to alert a supervisor that Monfils was missing. Monfils' partially decomposed body was found at the bottom of the pulp vat. Was tied around his neck. Kutska had drawn a diagram of where each defendant stood and had told Kellner that someone slapped Monfils and that Hirn 1 Basten and Johnson were Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-8127.htm">97-8127 -- WYOMING FARM BUREAU FEDERATION V. BABBITT -- 01/13/2000<BR></A><BR> Concluding they (1) are contrary to Congress' clear intent under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. (2) are contrary to the Department's own regulations extending Endangered Species Act protections to all individual animals within an area where experimental and nonexperimental populations may overlap. Factual Summary <p> Detailed facts underlying this appeal are set forth in <em>Wyoming Farm Bureau Fed'n v. One condition was the promulgation of nonessential experimental population rules to implement a wolf management program under section 10(j). Eventually will recolonize areas of Yellowstone and Idaho. (2) lone wolves have been confirmed to exist in or near the designated experimental population areas in Yellowstone and Idaho. Wounding or biting livestock on his land so long as the incident is reported within twenty four hours. <em>Id.</em> at 60264. The Parties <p> Appearing as Defendants/Appellants in this matter are the various governmental departments. Which were referred to this panel for resolution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/012292P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We decline to hold that monetary sanctions should have been imposed as well. Mohr was formerly a special agent with the FBI for nearly 30 years. The attorneys requested that Mohr visit the Elliott showroom to determine what products Elliott's salespersons were promoting and what equipment was on display in the showroom in order to ascertain which brand of snowmobile was selling best. He was also provided the name of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2270.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a short time in 1972. During several public appearances and on a world wide web site Liddy stated that the burglars' objective during the Watergate break in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.1 More specifically. Liddy asserted that the burglars were seeking a compromising photograph of Dean's fiance that was located in Wells's desk among several photographs that were used to offer prostitution services to outof town guests. The district court determined that Wells was an involuntary public figure who could not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Because we determine that Wells is not a public figure for purposes of the ongoing public debate regarding Watergate and we also conclude that Louisiana law does not apply to two of Wells's defamation counts. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 John Dean was legal counsel to President Richard M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3528_021.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0430p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of two counts of conspiracy and 155 counts of money laundering. Contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Jamieson further alleges that the government was guilty of misconduct in making certain prejudicial statements in closing argument The Honorable William W Schwarzer. He contends that he is entitled to be re sentenced under United States v. The marketing of viaticals is legal. The record establishes that Jamieson was aware of the risk of investing in fraudulent viatical policies. The viator's date of HIVpositive or AIDS diagnosis actually preceded the date the policy was issued by the insurance company. Jamieson gave testimony under oath to the Ohio Department of Commerce's Division of Securities that Liberte Capital never reviewed the policies it purchased to determine whether they were fraudulent because (contrary to his earlier description of how viators obtain fraudulent policies) he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_026.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the OE This opinion was originally released in typescript on August 21. 2007. 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 trial may not have been picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312776.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal of a jury verdict in a products liability action against Metabolife International. Testimony from Plaintiffs' experts was inadmissible. It was denied. Legal Standard This is a toxic tort case. Which authorizes the admission of expert opinion testimony </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0C41EB999E94C39488256C3D0059B504/$file/9916247.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> West Communications ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D86FE52B4E4EBBE88256CDF00834482/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that occurred in San Diego in 1997 and 1998. Bowdich received information from an unnamed source that a person known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1560.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Casner & Edwards were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. That the evidence was insufficient to support any of the counts of conviction. Evidence of the following was presented: (1) violations of civil rights laws by Brian Clayton (the underlying investigation in this case). The purpose of which was to advise and find attorneys for people who claimed that their First Amendment rights were being violated. Brian Clayton (Clayton) was a twenty year old founder of a skinhead organization formed in August of 1993 in Brockton. Three Jewish temples were spray painted with anti Semitic graffiti including a swastika. A federal grand jury was convened to investigate the temple desecrations as violations of civil rights laws. Told her that her son was a suspect in an investigation of temple desecrations. After another temple was vandalized on April 30. Clayton was in Florida with his family for his sister's wedding. Some of the symbols and slogans on the objects in Clayton's rooms were similar to those spray painted on the temples. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-2134.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith with whom Quinlan & Smith was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. *Of the District of Massachusetts. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment on Count I (a pre Guidelines charge). Appellant claims the district judge committed error in: (1) excluding testimony which would have impeached the credibility and demonstrated the bias of two important government witnesses. Appellant was a leader or organizer of five or more participants. James Hudson was then vigorously cross examined concerning his motives for cooperating with the government as well as his own extensive involvement in drug dealing. The government's next witness was Richard L. Appellant told him to stop selling cocaine to an individual named 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0245n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Venue was proper in the Western District of Michigan under the FCA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The central issue is whether the evidence presents sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032698p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002] today is I am very. That term is terrorist. There are many different kinds of terrorists. We all know too well the kinds of terrorists that caused the attacks of the anniversary so to speak we will mark tomorrow. There are very different kinds of terrorists. (Argued) West Long 105 North Front Street Suite 205 think this defendant is one of them. You heard testimony that he was forcing kids to do drug transactions for him. Is. Is best exemplified by the prosecutor's direct examination of the government's key witness. Through whom he elicited the many ways in which Moore was physically violent. It was also seen when the prosecutor. Could anyone disagree with the government that Moore was a bad man if not some species of </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/012097P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The terms and conditions of employment of Union members such as Burmeister are protected by a collective bargaining agreement ( </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2368.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. P.A. were on brief. That such negligence was actionable under applicable state law. Was stamping innersoles by means of a marker machine. Her hair was drawn into the vacuum created by the high speed rotation of a drive shaft that delivered power to an adjacent </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8526CE0F34F198D68825707C004B9F99/$file/0316959.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that Dominguez presented ample evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and that the decision not to promote her was motivated at least in part by her gender. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-4744.man.html">RANKIN V. EVANS (1/29/1998, NO. 95-4744)<BR></A><BR> Obviously the issues must be resolved dispassionately.</P> <P> Plaintiff appellant Doug Rankin was arrested in late November of 1988 and charged with the sexual abuse of a child under the age of twelve. It affirmatively found that he 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://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/024582p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Class members were entitled to opt out at various stages. Those who chose to opt out initially were freed to pursue their remedies elsewhere. Those who did not opt out at the beginning were afforded opportunities to opt out </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2373.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: 1. Pritzker could have exercised the buy out option as late as 10 years after the formation of the contract (withholding any payment until then). There is evidence in the record. The expert testified that this reduction to present value could have brought the present value of the redemption price as of December 3. Palcu & Miranda were on brief. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief. Circuit Judge. remedial phase of a protracted dispute in which the main protagonists are a pair of erstwhile partners. Was either excessive. Or too 1The three appeals with which we are concerned today were consolidated for oral argument with three other appeals arising out of the same case. For the apparent purpose of funding Dopp's litigatory efforts we will address them in a separate and subsequent opinion. 4 niggardly. We write somewhat sparingly because the background of the litigation is already well documented. Were the majority shareholder. 6 seller canceled the letter of credit. We then remanded for 3Resolution is a remedy that. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954744.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff appellant Doug Rankin was arrested in late November of 1988 and charged with the sexual abuse of a child under the age of twelve. It affirmatively found that he 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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954744.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff appellant Doug Rankin was arrested in late November of 1988 and charged with the sexual abuse of a child under the age of twelve. It affirmatively found that he 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/03a0409p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs allege in their complaint and amended complaint that they were transferred from Atkinson to another elementary school in the same district in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights and that the last minute hearing violated their right to due process. We now REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to De