/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 federal and courts and role returned 8501 results.

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

1000 OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
907 OPINION/ORDER
Was sentenced to death on the vote of a Delaware state jury in December 1982. It is not because there has been undue delay at any stage but because the case raises legitimate questions that go to the constitutionality of the original trial and sentencing. It was necessary to complete a series of proceedings in both state and federal court. Placed a bottle of beer on the counter and announced the store was being robbed. Who was then hopping up and down. As Riley and Baxter were proceeding to the door to leave. Williams were indicted on charges of felony murder. Baxter pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in exchange for his testimony against Riley. The murder and weapon charges against Williams were also dropped in exchange for his testimony against Riley. He was subsequently convicted of the robbery and conspiracy charges. Riley was represented at trial by appointed counsel. His pretrial motions for co counsel and funds for a private investigator were denied. The prosecutors in Riley's case were James Liguori and Mark McNulty.
890 OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that these State parties were indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Are subject to review by State public service commissions and thereafter. The parties found themselves in a dispute over whether Bell Atlantic had to pay reciprocal compensation for its subscribers' telephone calls made to Internet Service Providers (
850 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Jonathan K. Of counsel was John A. With him on the brief were Kelsey I. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief was Charles F. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were James A. With him on the brief were J. Of 2counsel was Herbert C. This is an interlocutory appeal by Cordis Corp. from a decision of the U.S. We agreed that the interlocutory appeal
843 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.
817 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
815 OPINION/ORDER
812 OPINION/ORDER
ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
808 OPINION/ORDER
The underlying dispute is a state law claim involving a mortgage foreclosure action. Or proceeding to which the [Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC)] is a party.
808 OPINION/ORDER
It is now before us for the second time after a remand by the Supreme Court. The main question today is this: whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a local carrier's claim that a state utility commission misinterpreted interconnection agreement provisions on reciprocal compensation that are based on federal law. We hold that there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That the action was not filed on a timely basis. The case will be remanded for further proceedings on the incumbent local carrier's contract misinterpretation claim. Telephone service in a local calling area was provided by a single local exchange carrier (local carrier). The duty to interconnect is coupled with other duties set forth in § 251. When the direction is reversed. The terms under which two competing local carriers interconnect their networks and provide for reciprocal compensation are set forth VERIZON MARYLAND v. Inc.) was providing local telephone service in Maryland. (We will refer to MFS Intelenet in the name of its successor.
803 OPINION/ORDER
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.
800 OPINION/ORDER
Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for these particular functions. Defendant Sheriff Peterson is responsible for the operation of the jail in Clinch County. Sheriff Peterson's deputy and chief jailer is Alan Brown. As Manders was escorted into the jail's holding cell. Manders was released from jail. The Manual also details when deadly force is justified. Are responsible for use of force policy at the jail. For ensuring that the policy is followed.3 According to Manders. Manders sought damages against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity.4 The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Manders's § 1983 damage claims against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity for the use of force policy at the jail and the training and The parties and the district court litigated this lawsuit against Sheriff Peterson as if all of Manders's § 1983 claims against Clinch County also were made against Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity. Claiming that he is a state actor and that the district court erred in denying him Eleventh Amendment immunity.6 This appeal does not address the individual liability of Sheriff Peterson or his deputies for using excessive force.7 Instead.
796 OPINION/ORDER
Is a Florida prisoner on death row. Its history is quite complicated. Who was married to Charles von Maxcy (
796 OPINION/ORDER
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
793 OPINION/ORDER
Line 5 the crossreference is corrected to read
791 PRESEAULT V. U.S.
791 OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez
791 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
791 OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
786 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
784 MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE V. SOUTHEAST BANK

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Motorcity of Jacksonville v. Southeast orally assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="784"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0768117AF3AA6FDE88256E5A00707B75/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="784"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/93-4634.ma2.html">MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE V. SOUTHEAST BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Motorcity of Jacksonville v. Southeast orally assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="784"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D03ABDFF7277C99F88256A610081EA0E/$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-7.gif" ALT="784"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032282p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the habeas petition of Lisa Michelle Lambert. Lambert is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for first degree murder. Lambert was released into the custody of her attorneys on April 16. Her freedom was short lived. Where a PCRA Court (again Judge Stengel) held a six week hearing and determined in a comprehensive opinion that relief under the PCRA was not warranted. Judge Dalzell held that the state courts' findings were null and void because they lacked jurisdiction to hear Lambert's PCRA petition. The case was assigned to Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That the PCRA Court's findings were not null and void and were entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="781"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1231p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These eleven consolidated[fn1] actions were brought by concerned Pennsylvanians who believed that they were being charged excessive fees and interest on their credit cards and that these charges violated Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. None of the defendants are Pennsylvania lending institutions. The cases were all brought in Pennsylvania state courts and then removed by the defendants to the federal system.[fn2] These cases require that we resolve the conflict between state consumer protection law and federal banking law. We will first consider the district courts' holdings that removal jurisdiction was proper. We will reverse the district courts on this issue. The Supreme Court's conservative extension of the complete preemption doctrine and the application of the Third Circuit's two pronged test establish that federal jurisdiction is lacking in those cases in which the plaintiffs did not amend their complaints to allege federal claims. We will next consider claims particular to these actions. We will affirm the district court to the extent that the court held that plaintiffs' state law claims regarding late charges and over limit fees were substantively preempted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/0138052.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MD 21201 Amicus Law Professors in support of Appellant *** Joining Professor Lipson on the brief are Professors Ralph Brubaker. Introduction This is an appeal from an Order of the District Court. The question on appeal is whether the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hartford Underwriters Ins. While the question in Hartford Underwriters was one of a nontrustee's right unilaterally to circumvent the Code's remedial scheme. Our conclusion is consistent with the received wisdom that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1118.html">THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>   </span>With him on the brief were <u>John F. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Andra Barmash Greene</u>. Communications Industry Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Matthew Schruers</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso bidi font s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></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-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-13824.man.html">FED. RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA V. THOMAS (7/31/2000, NO. 99-13824)<BR></A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-2588.opa.html">NIPPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nipper v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002224.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Louise Rosmer filed an action in state court against Pfizer Inc. on behalf of herself and as class representative for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-2588.opa.html">NIPPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nipper v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/95-2121.wpd.html">KERR-MCGEE V. FARLEY<BR></A><BR> Names of counsel appearing on the appellees' supplemental brief were omitted from the attorney designation list. A corrected version of that page of the opinion is attached for your convenience. Arguing that the Navajo Tribal Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate nuclear tort claims against Kerr McGee. Who are members of the Navajo Tribe and residents of the reservation. Because there is no explicit mention of exclusive federal court jurisdiction over Price Anderson claims. It concluded that the proper practice was to stay the federal court proceedings until the tribal court had determined its jurisdiction. We are unaware of any appeal by Kerr McGee of the Navajo District Court order. DISCUSSION The scope of a tribal court's jurisdiction is a federal question over which federal district courts have jurisdiction. The district court's determination of the proper scope of the tribal exhaustion rule is reviewed de novo. A The tribal exhaustion rule was created in National Farmers. The Supreme Court concluded: [T]he existence and extent of a tribal court's jurisdiction will require a careful examination of tribal sovereignty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A32D0DBFC890578788257042008169C7/$file/0415477.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Mary Doe1 challenges the State of California's jurisdiction Pseudonyms are used to identify the mother. Who was domiciled on the Elem Indian Colony reservation at the time she was removed from Mary Doe's custody by the Lake County Department of Social Services. Which was passed in 1978 to ensure the tribes a role in adjudicating child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 1963.2 ICWA provides that tribes will have exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involving Indian children domiciled or residing on the reservation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-13824.man.html">FED. RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA V. THOMAS (7/31/2000, NO. 99-13824)<BR></A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1713_037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the basis of any of the theories the plaintiffs have presented to us. Some or all of their claims are entitled to go forward. It concluded that the federal statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs' claims was not tolled during the pendency of certain state class actions in the California courts. Which were necessarily based on state rather than federal antitrust law. Whether viewed as a question of the time when the plaintiffs reasonably could have discovered that Morgan had anything to do with their injuries or viewed as a question of equitable estoppel and fraudulent concealment. The facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs could support a finding that their suit was timely. That the plaintiffs' claims against Sumitomo and Global were correctly dismissed. We therefore limit our discussion of the facts (taken for present purposes in the light most favorable to plaintiffs) to those that are of particular relevance. In the underlying actions that were consolidated under the multidistrict litigation (MDL) statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5098.html">EL-SHIFA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Timothy J. Ambrose</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Christopher J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'>            </span>The complaint states that Idris is a highly successful Saudi banker who was born and raised in Sudan.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The chain of events leading up to the instant lawsuit began in March 1998. El Shifa was the sole and exclusive owner of a manufacturing facility located in Khartoum. ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The appellants allege that El Shifa was the largest pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Sudan and that it used the Plant to supply drugs sorely needed by the impoverished people living in that country.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>    </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText style='text indent:.5in'><span style='mso bidi font size: 12.0pt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913824.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913824.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></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-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0252p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Congress's passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2304.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. We affirm the district court's finding that the law interferes with the foreign affairs power of the federal government and is thus unconstitutional. We further find that the Massachusetts Burma Law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal sanctions against Burma. There is one matter on which the parties are agreed: human rights conditions in Burma are deplorable. Final determination as to whether a company is in fact </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/May1994/94a0695p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Do so under circumstances in which they could have a good faith expectation that the defendant would be able to raise these federal objections in state collateral review proceedings. The issue we address is whether the rule of Fay v. George Lee Reynolds was tried for felony murder. His alleged role in the crimes was to drive his two codefendants to and from the scene of the murder and robbery. A hearing was held to determine their admissibility. Reynolds was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Independent of the transcript they were supplied. He might have conducted Reynolds' trial and/or direct appeal as he did. Offered three reconstructive hypotheses as to why he might not have moved for a mistrial. The first hypothesis was that he did not want a mistrial because it would give the prosecution a second opportunity to proffer the confessions after having marshalled stronger evidence to support their admissibility. The second was that a motion for a mistrial might have prompted the prosecutor to ask for a recess and rethink his decision to withdraw the confessions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/993234.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Does the District Court have mandamus jurisdiction over the Territorial Court? The jurisprudence is clear that jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus lies in cases where potential jurisdiction exists. We further conclude that the ROA's command that the relationship between the District Court and local courts mirror the one between state and federal courts is not a bar to the District Court's exercise of mandamus power because the District Court retains appellate jurisdiction over the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands. Which precludes dismissal of criminal cases absent a judicial finding that the dismissal is in good faith. Because this judgment is reserved to prosecutors under the old common law power of nolle prosequi. Rule 128(b) is a substantive rule of law rather than a procedural rule that the local court is authorized to promulgate under the ROA. The local rules of the Territorial Court apply the Federal Rules in circumstances in which there are no valid rules to the contrary. The argument that this rule also has a substantive component is not without force. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/023236p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is an appellee and is participating in this appeal. Certain other parties that have been dismissed from the action or are not participating in the appeal. As the parties have done in their briefs. As a matter of convenience we will treat him as the sole appellant in this opinion referring to him as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1020p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23? 50 E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? 69 A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)? 69 B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record? 70 1. Is the Settlement Fair. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approving the settlement of a large class action following its certification of a so called settlement class. The class members are purchasers. It was subsequently determined. May have had a design defect in their location of the fuel tank. Many of the class members are individual owners (i.e. While others are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-7.gif" ALT="755"></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-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021494A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We now conclude that the government's waiver of sovereign immunity reflected in the Suits in Admiralty Act is subject to an implied exception similar to the discretionary function exception contained within the Federal Tort Claims Act. I. The relevant facts are set out in detail in the panel's opinion. We will only briefly recount them here. The plaintiffs were riding two jet skis on the Ohio River in the vicinity of the Robert C. The plaintiffs were injured when they went over the gates and dropped approximately twenty five feet to the water below. There were several warning signs on the upstream side of the dam. Their evidence indicated that the signs were difficult to see from the river. Alleging that the government had a duty to warn about the dangers of the dam and that the signs in place were inadequate to satisfy this duty. Arguing that it was protected by an implied discretionary function exception to the SIAA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The government also moved for summary judgment on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that it had no duty to warn about the dam and that the warnings it provided were. </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwOThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9098_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because there is no demonstrated conflict with state law that would require federal common law rule making in this case. Federal common law rule making is only appropriate if the operation of state law would </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1572.html">SPENCER WILLIAMS, V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Janice R. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Richard J. ) are entitled to back pay and future cost of living pay increases under the Ethics Reform </P> <P ALIGN= </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/923359P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide whether an American Indian Tribal Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a tort case which arose out of an automobile accident which occurred between two non Indian parties on an Indian reservation. We now hold that the tribal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. Fredericks suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized for 24 days. A 1 is a non tribal company located in Dickinson. Stockert is not a member of the tribe and resides in Dickinson. Fredericks is not a member of the tribe. She was married to a tribal member (now deceased). Her adult children are enrolled members of the tribe. A 1 was working on the reservation under a subcontract agreement with LCM Corporation. The record is not clear whether Stockert was engaged in work under the contract at the time of the accident.1 There is no proof (as opposed to allegations) that we can find in the record to support the district court's finding of fact that A 1 was in performance of the contract at the time of the accident. </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.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-7.gif" ALT="751"></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-7.gif" ALT="741"></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="741"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2530.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. That is not normally the stuff of lawsuits in federal court. Her injuries were more than trivial and led to surgery. The claims of Beatriz's family members were composed of emotional distress damages. Plaintiffs' choice of federal court was no doubt influenced by the fact that civil jury trials are unavailable in the local courts of Puerto Rico.</P> <P> The case raises two issues. First is the classic question whether each of the plaintiffs meets the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § . Using an analytic approach that we have since rejected. Held that it was a legal certainty that none of the plaintiffs' claims was worth $75. We reverse and hold that it is not a legal certainty that she could not recover an award over $75. We uphold the district court's conclusion that none of Beatriz's family members satisfies the amount in controversy requirement. </P> <P> The second question is whether Beatriz's family members may nonetheless remain as plaintiffs under the supplemental jurisdiction statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BFF2CFAE79835FD88256FE7005BEA8C/$file/0315208.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that such claims are barred by the political question doctrine. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114680.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was after this case was argued. We conclude that the district court's evidentiary rulings were neither an abuse of discretion. We reaffirm the basic principle that an appellate court must afford the district court's gatekeeping determinations </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></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-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/98-3060d.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is ORDERED. Are no longer protected from public disclosure by Rule 6(e). It is further ORDERED. It is further ORDERED. Were on the briefs. Sexton were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Was on the brief. The principal question is whether an attorney in the Office of the President. To state the question is to suggest the answer. For the Office of the President is a part of the federal government. The Supreme Court and this court have held that even the constitutionally based executive privilege for presi dential communications fundamental to the operation of the government can be overcome upon a proper showing of need for the evidence in criminal trials and in grand jury proceed ings. There is no basis for treating legal advice different ly from any other advice the Office of the President receives in performing its constitutional functions. The extent to which the communications of White House Counsel are privileged against disclosure to a federal grand jury depends. The main focus of Independent Counsel Starr's inqui ry had been on financial transactions involving President Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7044a.html">A. LASHAWN V. BARRY JR. MARION S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="736"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B67C07DCC082AC598825701A007626F4/$file/0315208.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that such claims are barred by the political question doctrine. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1383a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\05 1383 Village of BENSENVILLE 9 7 06.odl.wpd
734 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. Sweatt argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of kidnapping and that the district court improperly sentenced him as a
734 OPINION/ORDER
We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize
734 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. Sweatt argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of kidnapping and that the district court improperly sentenced him as a
732 OPINION/ORDER
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.
729 OPINION/ORDER
Was the Auction in this Case Permissibl e? 111 D. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY These are consolidated appeals from the District Court's approval of a $3.2 billion settlement of a securities fraud class action brought against Cendant Corporation and its auditors. Both the settlement and the fee award are challenged in these appeals. The enormous size of both the settlement and the fee award presages a new generation of
729 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case. Riley pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and was tried by jury in Kent County Superior Court in December 1982. He was represented by appointed counsel. Riley placed a quart bottle of beer on the counter and announced that the store was being robbed. The prosecution intr oduced evidence that Riley's fingerprints were found on the bottle of beer that had been placed on the counter. Riley took the stand in his own defense and testified that he was in Philadelphia with his mother celebrating her birthday when the robbery occurred. Although Riley's mother was present in court at the beginning of the trial. No other alibi witnesses were presented. The penalty phase of the trial was held. After Riley was sentenced on the remaining counts for which he had been convicted. This claim is procedurally barred.
729 OPINION/ORDER
File Name: 00a0138p.06 Because we conclude that there was no manifest miscarriage of justice in Scott's trial or sentencing that would authorize us to issue a federal writ of habeas corpus countermanding the judgment of the Ohio courts. We are convinced that the district court erred in holding that the ground on which it granted the writ was not procedurally barred. Because we conclude that the district court correctly held that the other grounds raised by Scott's petition were either defaulted or without merit. We will reverse the issuance of the writ. Factual History The facts of the underlying crime are not in significant dispute. The following summary is largely taken from the district court's Order. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim is not procedurally defaulted. Scott argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove that he committed or attempted to commit aggravated robbery. As the only specification that made him deatheligible was
727 OPINION/ORDER
The state and local taxing authorities who had received and refused or failed to refund the recordation and transfer tax proceeds were located in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Each of the taxing authorities was served with notice of the motion and each responded by filing motions for abstention. NVR was exempt from transfer and recordation taxes on any real property transfers completed between April 6. The date that its reorganization plan was fully implemented and the bankruptcy period ended. Specifically holding that
727 OPINION/ORDER
Prudential's role was generally to stabilize the cash flow of the enterprise: in addition to financing LaPine's inventory and accounts receivable. More detailed
725 FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO

With him on the brief were Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was James B. With him on the brief was Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were John G. Also of counsel on the brief were Rory J. With him on the brief were Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were Perry M. Also on the brief was Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief was James W. Circuit Judge.

725 OPINION/ORDER
All of which are connected to his support of Hizballah. The appeal was argued before a three judge panel. I. Facts The facts underlying Hammoud's convictions and sentence are largely undisputed. A. Hizballah Hizballah is an organization founded by Lebanese Shi'a Muslims in response to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. It is also a strong opponent of Western presence in the Middle East. Hizballah is particularly opposed to the existence of Israel and to the activities of the American government in the Middle East. Hizballah's general secretary is Hassan Nasserallah. Its spiritual leader is Sheikh Fadlallah. While the asylum application was pending. Where his brothers and cousins were living. While the North Carolina tax is only 50¢. It is estimated that the conspiracy involved a quantity of cigarettes valued at roughly $7.5 million and that the state of Michigan was deprived of $3 million in tax revenues. These services were often conducted at Hammoud's home. Hammoud who is acquainted with both Nasserallah and Fadlallah.
725 99-1211 -- FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION V. COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE -- 05/05/2000

Are subject to FECA's contribution limits. Buckley. The Act sets the following contribution limits: A
725 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Eric Noel and Sandra and Brian Hall are no strangers to the inside of a courtroom. This lawsuit is the fifth between Noel and Sandra Hall. On the ground that they should have been asserted as compulsory counterclaims in earlier statecourt litigation. Sell Red Hot Prospect a horse that was no such thing. Sandra Hall's last name was Johnson. A. State Court Litigation The unhappy collaboration between Sandra Hall and Noel resulted in four suits litigated in Washington State courts (a fifth suit was filed but never litigated): two actions concerning the mobile home in the small claims department of the Clark County District Court (eventually consolidated on appeal). Small Claims Suits Concerning the Mobile Home Two separate actions related to the mobile home were litigated in the small claims department of the district court in Clark County. Skamania County Superior Court Suit Concerning the Investment in Red While the mobile home suits were pending against him. (The Clark County suit is discussed below.).
722 OPINION/ORDER
Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Rice is an 13441 unpublished disposition. Is available on Westlaw#FC# and LEXIS#FC#. It is marked with the following notice:
722 OPINION/ORDER
Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Rice is an 13441 unpublished disposition. Is available on Westlaw#FC# and LEXIS#FC#. It is marked with the following notice:
722 OPINION/ORDER
Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For
720 OPINION/ORDER
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).
720 OPINION/ORDER
As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals.
720 00-2451 -- U.S. V. CITY OF LAS CRUCES -- 05/07/2002

INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing the United States' suit to quiet title to water rights in a portion of the Rio Grande River. The purpose of the Reclamation Act was to facilitate irrigation of arid and semi arid western territories and states by providing for the construction of large scale irrigation works. See Henkel v. The Project is one that grew out of the Act. It is expansive. Just below Elephant Butte Reservoir is Caballo Reservoir. Water is released into the Rio Grande riverbed. The water is then diverted by one of six diversion dams into canals running on either side of the river. Riverwater is further diverted into channels and ditches running to farmland. The water is used to irrigate crops. The process is repeated several times over the length of the Project to irrigate land in both southeastern New Mexico and western Texas.

Irrigation in the United States is not the sole use of Project water. Project water is also used outside of the United States.

717 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 10. Cullen & Resnick were on brief for 604 Columbus Avenue. Gottlieb were on brief for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. *Of the Third Circuit. This is a case involving a failed loan transaction that well illustrates Polonius' advice. Among which were the property owned by the Trust itself and properties of the Trust's principal beneficiary. Of which Millicent Young was sole beneficiary. The Young Family Trust was a named plaintiff in the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy and district courts below. The Bank was declared unsound by Massachusetts banking officials. The FDIC was appointed 7 receiver. In February 1991 was substituted as defendant appellant in the district court. That the FDIC was entitled to raise the defenses available to it under the doctrine of estoppel established in D'Oench. The district court vacated that part of the bankruptcy court's judgment that was premised on the secret agreement by one of the Trust's principals to provide kickbacks to a Bank officer.
717 OPINION/ORDER
Died before it was released. 2 1 Attorney for Appellant Evan C. The ministerial exception was created to protect church autonomy and avoid entangling government in religious affairs. Where otherwise illegal discrimination is based on religious belief. Or the internal regulations of a church is simply the exercise of intolerance. Demoted her because she is a woman and because 5 she opposed sexual harassment by Gannon officials. A motion such as Gannon's is more properly dealt with under Rule 12(b)(6). We will therefore reverse the dismissal of her Title VII claims. What we deal with here is functionally a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. 6 2 religion clauses removed jurisdiction. We cannot conclude at this stage of litigation that these claims will require an examination of matters of faith. They are not barred by the religion clauses.3 I. The facts set forth below are drawn from Petruska's First Amended Complaint. Gannon University is a Catholic diocesan college located in Erie. Petruska was appointed permanent chaplain on July 1.
717 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the district court erred in dismissing. We conclude that the district court did indeed have subject matter jurisdiction. Have various usury laws that generally prohibit such high interest loans. No one doubts that when so called
717 OPINION/ORDER
Although both of these grounds were inapposite. The district court's dismissal is therefore AFFIRMED. Is a tract of land owned by the state and maintained by Eastern Kentucky University as a wildlife refuge and research facility. The Woods are designated a National Natural Landmark as
715 PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)

The court declined to address whether there was a
715 OPINION/ORDER
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
715 PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)

The court declined to address whether there was a
715 97-1287 -- U.S. V. MCVEIGH -- 09/08/1998

McVeigh (
713 OPINION/ORDER
The primary issue involves whether the relevant provision of FTAIA is jurisdictional or whether it states an additional element of a Sherman Act claim. What the outcome will be. Plaintiffs United Phosphorus and Shroff's United Chemicals are chemical manufacturers based in India. Miller & Associates is an American firm. Which was involved in a joint venture with the Indian plaintiffs. The defendants are Angus Chemical and its officers. Which we will refer to collectively as Angus. The issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction was first raised soon after the case was filed in 1994. Angus' Rule 12(b)(1) motion was denied. That allegation is consistent with a report from the Centers for Disease Control. The parties tell us that
713 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Joseph W. Are hereby amended. The amended opinion and amended dissent are filed concurrently herewith. The opinion and dissent are amended as follows: 1. Justice Scalia further held that
710 OPINION/ORDER
I. Gaming Corp. and Golden Nickel (the management companies) are Minnesota corporations involved in the management of gambling casinos. They have overlapping ownership and at one point agreed to merge. some time. The Ho Chunk Nation is a recognized Native American tribe in The Dorsey is a large Minnesota law firm which actively represented Gaming Corp. for Wisconsin and was known as the Wisconsin Winnebago Tribe until 1994. nation decided to open a casino and negotiated a tribal state compact with the state of Wisconsin in 1992 as required by IGRA to allow it to conduct casino gaming. The nation desired to have Dorsey represent it during the process of developing the casino. Golden Nickel was to provide financing for the construction and to maintain at all times a valid license from the Winnebago Gaming Commission. Which was valid until the end of that year. companies merged as they proposed. operating. The management companies apparently planned to merge if both applications were Dorsey assisted the tribal gaming commission in assessing the applications and was in charge of presenting evidence at several commission hearings held from December 1993 through May 1994.
710 OPINION/ORDER
Tewksbury was working alone as the night clerk at the King Kwik convenience store at 9870 Pippin Road in Hamilton County. Monte was married and was the father of three children. Robert Shephard was driving northbound on Pippin Road. Monte was bleeding from his side. Went back to the telephone which was still off the hook. Monte was transported to a hospital.
710 OPINION/ORDER
Line 25 a comma is inserted after the word
708 UNITED STATES V. VARON (5/14/1999, NO. 96-5421)

Circuit Judge:

The central issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court clearly erred in denying a drug courier who imported 512.4 grams of 85 percent pure heroin from Colombia into the United States a two point downward adjustment for her minor role in the offense under § 3B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That there was in fact ample evidence in the record to support its determination that the defendant did not play a minor role in the offense. We reaffirm our longstanding view that a district court's determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a minor role adjustment under the Guidelines is a finding of fact that will be reviewed only for clear error. That is. The Guidelines and our case precedent plainly require the district court to undertake this method of analysis in every case where a role adjustment is at issue. See U.S.S.G. Where the record evidence is sufficient. Suspecting that she was an internal carrier of narcotics. De Varon was carrying $2.

708 UNITED STATES V. VARON (5/14/1999, NO. 96-5421)

Circuit Judge:

The central issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court clearly erred in denying a drug courier who imported 512.4 grams of 85 percent pure heroin from Colombia into the United States a two point downward adjustment for her minor role in the offense under § 3B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That there was in fact ample evidence in the record to support its determination that the defendant did not play a minor role in the offense. We reaffirm our longstanding view that a district court's determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a minor role adjustment under the Guidelines is a finding of fact that will be reviewed only for clear error. That is. The Guidelines and our case precedent plainly require the district court to undertake this method of analysis in every case where a role adjustment is at issue. See U.S.S.G. Where the record evidence is sufficient. Suspecting that she was an internal carrier of narcotics. De Varon was carrying $2.

706 OPINION/ORDER
This is the question that prompted us to go en banc in Gilbertson v. Both opinions have been vacated. Was a land surveyor whose Oregon license to survey was revoked and not reinstated by the State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying (the Board). We conclude that Younger principles apply to actions at law as well as for injunctive or declaratory relief because a determination that the federal plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated would have the same practical effect as a 1 Younger v. Federal courts should not dismiss actions where damages are at issue. Damages actions should be stayed until the state proceedings are completed. That direct interference is a threshold requirement. Indicate that Younger principles apply here because the state proceeding was pending at the time Gilbertson filed his federal action. It was in the nature of a judicial proceeding that implicates important state interests. The district court should have deferred to the Oregon proceeding unless that proceeding was conducted in bad faith or some other exception to Younger exists.
706 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: While litigation concerning the constitutionality of a state statute was pending in state court. Holding that because the federal court plaintiffs could have intervened in the state court proceedings. They were obligated to do so. Each system is competent to decide federal constitutional issues. Each is entrusted with doing so in appropriate cases. Although there 8610 are limited circumstances in which such abstention by federal courts is appropriate. Those circumstances are
706 OPINION/ORDER
The general question presented by the relatively bizarre factual background of this case is whether or not a core function of municipal government the provision of firefighting services impacts interstate commerce such that an individual can be indicted under a federal anti arson statute for destroying a fire station. Is whether the Henning. Tennessee Fire Station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce such that the person charged with setting it ablaze can be indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). We hold that this particular fire station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce and accordingly REVERSE the judgment of the district court dismissing the indictment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE Prometheus may have thought twice before handing down the gift of fire to humans had he imagined that those whom the mere mortals chose to steward the precious flame would use it to decimate the very mechanisms employed to control 1 No. 02 5185 United States v.
706 MURPHY BRUCE G. V. FDIC
706 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: While litigation concerning the constitutionality of a state statute was pending in state court. Holding that because the federal court plaintiffs could have intervened in the state court proceedings. They were obligated to do so. Each system is competent to decide federal constitutional issues. Each is entrusted with doing so in appropriate cases. Although there 8610 are limited circumstances in which such abstention by federal courts is appropriate. Those circumstances are
706 OPINION/ORDER
706 OPINION/ORDER
Insurance companies are expressly excluded from federal bankruptcy laws. Reliance2 was placed in rehabilitation proceedings. Reliance's principal argument is that the district court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Hawthorne's suit once the rehabilitation proceedings began. Charging substantial fees and interest.4 After the period in which Bazyler could have rescinded the loan without penalty passed. Braly decided to have Hawthorne bid against Bazyler at the foreclosure sale. Even though there was no doubt that Bazyler had the necessary collateral for the extra funds. Hawthorne was insured by a
703 ESFELD V. COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A. (4/30/2002, NO. 01-11072)

The question on appeal is whether. Appellants are three elderly married couples who were injured in the accident. All three couples are United States citizens. The Appellants were on a Western Pacific cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling. Was owned and operated by Costa.

703 ESFELD V. COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A. (4/30/2002, NO. 01-11072)

The question on appeal is whether. Appellants are three elderly married couples who were injured in the accident. All three couples are United States citizens. The Appellants were on a Western Pacific cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling. Was owned and operated by Costa.

703 OPINION/ORDER
If in the opinion of the magistrate the evidence shows that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it. We will first discuss the Supreme Court's ruling in Press Enterprise II. PRESS ENTERPRISE II Section 868 of the California Penal Code required preliminary hearings to be open to the public unless
703 JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER (3/27/1998, NO. 94-6400)

Circuit Judge:

The issue presented by this case is whether Jefferson County. Clemon are United States District Judges for the Northern District of Alabama who maintain their principal offices in Birmingham. The motion was denied. The cases subsequently were consolidated.

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Stating that any holding with respect to the Compensation Clause was unnecessary. See Jefferson County v. We concluded that although the privilege tax is measured by the income of the taxed individual. The taxable event is the performance of federal judicial duties in Jefferson County. See id. at 1572. We held that the tax is unconstitutional as applied to the judges. See id. at 1573 76.

Jefferson County then filed in the Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari. This is the first time that the issue has been raised in this court. That removal of the case to federal court was therefore improper.

703 OPINION/ORDER
2005 and appearing at 421 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2005) is hereby amended as follows: 1) 421 F.3d at 852. Reliance2 was placed in rehabilitation proceedings. Reliance's principal argument is that the district court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Hawthorne's suit once the rehaInsurance companies are expressly excluded from federal bankruptcy laws. Charging substantial fees and interest.4 After the period in which Bazyler could have rescinded the loan without penalty passed. Braly decided to have Hawthorne bid against Bazyler at the foreclosure sale. Even though there was no doubt that Bazyler had the necessary collateral for the extra funds. The facts giving rise to the original settlement between Bazyler and Hawthorne are undisputed and were stipulated at trial. 4 HAWTHORNE SAVINGS v. Hawthorne was insured by a
703 JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER (3/27/1998, NO. 94-6400)

Circuit Judge:

The issue presented by this case is whether Jefferson County. Clemon are United States District Judges for the Northern District of Alabama who maintain their principal offices in Birmingham. The motion was denied. The cases subsequently were consolidated.

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Stating that any holding with respect to the Compensation Clause was unnecessary. See Jefferson County v. We concluded that although the privilege tax is measured by the income of the taxed individual. The taxable event is the performance of federal judicial duties in Jefferson County. See id. at 1572. We held that the tax is unconstitutional as applied to the judges. See id. at 1573 76.

Jefferson County then filed in the Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari. This is the first time that the issue has been raised in this court. That removal of the case to federal court was therefore improper.

701 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
701 OPINION/ORDER
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
701 OPINION/ORDER
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
701 OPINION/ORDER
2001 is amended as follows: 1) The opinion's list of counsel for the defendantsappellees. The first three sentences of the first full paragraph should be replaced by the following: 235
699 OPINION/ORDER
The question on appeal is whether. Appellants are three elderly married couples who were injured in the accident. All three couples are United States citizens. The Appellants were on a Western Pacific Honorable David D. Ct. 817 (1938). 3 cruise that had begun in Singapore and was set to terminate in Hong Kong. The cruise ship upon which they were traveling. Was owned and operated by Costa. Although Costa is an Italian corporation. 2 the Appellants have argued throughout this litigation that all of Costa's marketing. Sales for the United States are done through an office in Miami with over 110 employees. The advertising was successful with respect to them. Arrangements for the trip then were made through a company affiliated with Costa that was located in South Florida. It is as a result of these Miami based sales activities by Costa. Costa was acquired in part by Carnival Corporation. Which is headquartered in Miami. When the cruise ship was docked in the Vietnam port of call. None of these entities were parties to the subsequent federal litigation at issue in this appeal. 5 3 the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
699 OPINION/ORDER
Both defendants were convicted. No reason for holding the proceedings in the robing room is apparent in the record of either case. Because the public and press have a qualified First Amendment right of access to plea and sentencing proceedings. Goiry's case is remanded for resentencing. Munoz's plea is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. Oral arguments were heard in the appeals of the Munoz and Goiry cases by two panels of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 this court on March 9. Respectively. 1 We have consolidated these cases for purposes of disposition on appeal because they raise a similar issue. Munoz entered her plea in the robing room and Goiry was sentenced in the robing room. The public and press have a qualified First Amendment right of access to plea and sentencing proceedings.
699 OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to review the District Court's dismissal of Lawrence Lines' petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. We conclude that returning to state court would be futile and that his claims are all procedurally defaulted. We will affirm. This is not to suggest that anyone other than Lines himself is responsible for much of the complexity here. It is his own conduct that has prevented him from getting the review he has been seeking in the state and federal courts. As will be seen from our discussion. His flight during the course of his jury trial tossed a procedural monkey wrench into subsequent proceedings in both state and federal court. 2 Lines was tried for murder in state court in 1986. While the jury was deliberating. Lines was apprehended on December 21. While those post verdict motions were pending. Arguing that Lines was no longer entitled to seek post verdict relief because he had absconded during his trial. Lines was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. Was the Defendant Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel when defense counsel allowed the admittance of hearsay statements without objection.
696 OPINION/ORDER
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.
696 OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Amended Opinion and Amended Dissent. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression in any federal circuit and the vast majority of state courts.1 A The dissent points to only two states whose supreme courts have addressed this issue: Maine and California. It is squarely presented. Facts Scott was arrested in Nevada on state charges of drug possession and released on his own recognizance. Scott was required to sign a form stating that he agreed to comply with certain conditions. Among the conditions was consent to
696 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The issue presented by this case is whether Jefferson County. Hull and Stanley Marcus became members of the court after this case was argued and taken under submission. Clemon are United States District Judges for the Northern District of Alabama who maintain their principal offices in Birmingham. The motion was denied. The cases subsequently were consolidated. We have summarized the facts briefly here. Stating that any holding with respect to the Compensation Clause was unnecessary. We concluded that although the privilege tax is measured by the income of the taxed individual. The taxable event is the performance of federal judicial duties in Jefferson County. We held that the tax is unconstitutional as applied to the judges. This is the first time that the issue has been raised in this court. That removal of the case to federal court was therefore improper.3 As no other circumstances exist that would support federal court jurisdiction. Our first inquiry is to determine whether § 1442 applies.
696 BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)

We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the
696 BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)

We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the
696 OPINION/ORDER
Hull and Stanley Marcus became members of the court after this case was argued and taken under submission. Circuit Judge: The issue presented by this case is whether Jefferson County. We have summarized the facts briefly here. Clemon are United States District Judges for the Northern District of Alabama who maintain their principal offices in Birmingham. The motion was denied. The cases subsequently were consolidated. Stating that any holding with respect 2 to the Compensation Clause was unnecessary. We concluded that although the privilege tax is measured by the income of the taxed individual. The taxable event is the performance of federal judicial duties in Jefferson County. We held that the tax is unconstitutional as applied to the judges. This is the first time that the issue has 3 been raised in this court. That removal of the case to federal court was therefore improper.3 As no other circumstances exist that would support federal court jurisdiction. Our first inquiry is to determine whether § 1442 applies.
694 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Joseph W. Plumlee claims that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the trial judge's denial of Plumlee's pre trial motion to substitute counsel on the basis of an irreconcilable conflict that precluded Plumlee's counsel from acting in the role of an advocate. DEL PAPA reasonably and in good faith believed that members of the Washoe County Public Defender's Office were leaking information about his case to another suspect in the case and to the District Attorney. The resulting distrust that arose between Plumlee and his appointed attorney was such that the attorney himself likened his representation of Plumlee to no representation at all. Plumlee was charged in Nevada state court with the armed robbery and murder of Wilbur Richard Beard. Chief Deputy Public Defender Shelly O'Neill was a good friend of John Dewey. Who was both Plumlee's roommate prior to his arrest and a suspect for the murder. Who was the head trial attorney in the Public Defender's Office. Plumlee also suspected that Allison was leaking information to the District Attorney's Office.
694 OPINION/ORDER
Save Our Valley argues that the project will have the effect of discriminating against Rainier Valley residents based on race in violation of a Department of Transportation regulation. The primary question before us is whether that Department of Transportation regulation creates an individual federal right that can be enforced under the Civil Rights Act. I The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (
694 OPINION/ORDER
Both LSS and WHO are non profit organizations which provide community services to residents of Westmoreland County in western Pennsylvania. LSS was selected by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to receive grant moneys under the federal Supportive Housing Program. Because WHO was one of LSS's largest creditors. WHO defended on the ground that LSS's interest in the Supportive Housing Program grant relationship was not property of LSS's bankruptcy estate and thus did not trigger a fiduciary duty on WHO's part. We hold that LSS's interest in the grant r elationship with HUD is excluded from the definition of
694 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the briefs were Elaine D. The Final Rule Fails to
694 OPINION/ORDER
Is permitted to maintain a law office in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the sole purpose of supporting his practice before the federal court. That this case is not ripe for adjudication. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel argues that the District Court erred in determining that Surrick is permitted to maintain a law office in Pennsylvania to support his federal practice. Although we conclude that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and will affirm the judgment for the reasons stated below. Plaintiff was given a temporary pass to resume his Federal law practice and not a permanent absolution from requirements and oversight of the Commonwealth. Surrick has not complied in good faith with this order and has ignored the District Court's admonition that he was only granted a temporary pass. Surrick has asserted to this Court that he will pay the costs and enroll in the courses if he prevails on appeal. We will direct Surrick to satisfy forthwith the requirements for reinstatement to the Pennsylvania Bar.
691 OPINION/ORDER
As that phrase is used in § 1958(a). Valoze's cellular phone number was registered in a South Georgia area code. This telephone call was recorded. Both men were physically located in Georgia. The money would only be
689 AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198)

Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively
689 OPINION/ORDER
All of whom are government officials. One count is devoted to federal law and another to state law. Substantive Facts The district court stated the background facts that gave rise to this case as follows: The plaintiffs in this case are a Michigan circuit judge. Nor have plaintiffs moved yet for class certification. Plaintiffs purport to represent all active and retired Michigan judges who are
689 OPINION/ORDER
At issue in this case is an application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Soon after the action was filed. Arguing (1) that plaintiffs lack statutory standing under RICO to pursue this case because any injury they suffered was derivative of an injury The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell. Because we reject the application of Garmon preemption in this context and because we cannot say at this early stage in the case that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient as a matter of law to establish statutory standing. Tyson's headquarters are in Springdale. One of Tyson's plants is located in Shelbyville. Soon after the indictment was filed. Tabetha Eddings and Doris Jewell former hourly workers at Tyson's Shelbyville facility who were legally employed by Tyson filed this civil RICO action against Tyson based on some of the same allegedly illegal activities underlying the criminal indictment. The amended complaint alleges that Tyson engaged in a scheme to depress the wages paid to its hourly employees by knowingly hiring undocumented illegal immigrants who were willing to work for wages well below those paid in labor markets composed of only United States citizens.
689 OPINION/ORDER
689 OPINION/ORDER
(2) that removal is proper under the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v.
689 ANDERSON V. H&R BLOCK, INC. (4/3/2002, NO. 01-11863)

Circuit Judge:

689 AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198)

Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively
689 ANDERSON V. H&R BLOCK, INC. (4/3/2002, NO. 01-11863)

Circuit Judge:

689 OPINION/ORDER
Which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states. Conditions of such arrangements are set forth in interconnection agreements established between the carriers. The state utility commissions are empowered. Arguing that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The PUC and Verizon each appealed and the appeals were consolidated. We have jurisdiction over the final decision of a District Court. We conclude that the PUC and the Commissioners are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court under the 1996 Act. We will. We will affirm the District Court in part and reverse it in part. Is able to compete with an ILEC without having to bear the prohibitive cost of building its own telecommunications network. Both an ILEC and a CLEC are required to
687 UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)

Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
687 00-6204 -- HAWKINS V. MULLIN -- 05/22/2002

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.

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

687 UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)

Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
684 LOUGH V. BRUNSWICK CORP.
684 OPINION/ORDER
Argue that Oklahoma's statutory scheme for specialty motor vehicle license plates is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Motorists contend that Oklahoma's laws unlawfully discriminate against their views by permitting drivers to obtain license plates bearing the messages
684 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellant Superior Court of Puerto Rico for the District of Arecibo. Bonnet Rosario was on brief for appellants Rivera Santos. William Ramirez Hernandez with whom Nora Vargas Acosta was on brief for plaintiffs. Jeanne Finberg and National Senior Citizens Law Center were on brief for intervenors appellees. The Superior Court judgment was based on a determination that Casa Marie was operating in violation of local zoning ordinances and JDA restrictive covenants. A. The Opening and Expansion of Casa Marie The Jardines de Arecibo housing development was established in 1967. Each property in the development is subject to restrictive 3 covenants allowing only detached single family residences. Was established by Maria Pla Placencio on a dead end street in a section of JDA zoned residential (R 3). Elder care facilities are not allowed except as a variance. Casa Marie was granted a six month provisional DSS license to operate an elder care facility on Lots 19 and 20. Casa Marie was denied a permanent DSS license due in part to the discovery that the A.R.P.E. 1As these endorsements were not seriously at issue.
684 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Louis R. Graham J. 3 Jenkins were on the brief for amicus curiae Global Rights in support of appellants in Nos. 05 5062. With him on the briefs were Barbara J. Land were on the brief of amicus curiae Omar Deghayes in support of the detainees. Morton Sklar was on the brief of amicus curiae The World Organization for Human Rights USA in support of the detainees. David Overlock Stewart was on the brief of amici curiae Legal and Historical Scholars in support of the detainees. Hafetz was on the brief of amici curiae British and American Habeas Scholars in support of the detainees. Were on 4 the brief for amicus curiae Federal Public Defender Habeas Corpus Counsel in support of the detainees. Meister were on the brief for amicus curiae the National Institute of Military Justice in support of the detainees. With him on the briefs were Paul D. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Samp were on the brief of amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in support of the United States of America.
684 POMPEY V. BROWARD CTY.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Pompey v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-4214.opa.html">POMPEY V. BROWARD CTY.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pompey v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3178a.htm">97-3178A -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999<BR></A><BR> The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3178.htm">97-3178 -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991055.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nottoway County contends that its decision to deny the permit was indeed supported by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/004205.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's judgment in favor of the defendants. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1347.html">DOW CHEMICAL V. EXXON CORP.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CB92EF5AD825DA188256CCA0011916F/$file/0215416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AT&T appeals on the ground that the application of California's consumer protection laws is preempted by the Federal Communications Act and the Federal Arbitration Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The 1934 Act was intended to address the unique problems inherent in a monopolistic environment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/023381p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are once again called upon to determine whether a lawsuit claiming medical negligence is completely preempted by the civil enforcement provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0171p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jimmy Ray and Kenneth Valentine were convicted of conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine powder and crack cocaine. We reverse and hold that Jimmy Ray Valentine is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial counsel thwarted his efforts to accept a plea bargain. Jimmy Ray Valentine Jimmy Ray was convicted in February 2000 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. While his motion was pending in the district court. While his application was pending. Valentine Kenneth was tried with his brother Jimmy Ray and six other defendants. Was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. Kenneth was sentenced to 292 months. Predicated on the district court's finding that at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base were involved in the offense. The merits of Kenneth's Booker challenge are properly before us. This distinction is irrelevant. Because the district court based its ruling on the legal conclusion that Jimmy Ray's proposed amendment to include a Blakely argument would be futile as Blakely was inapplicable on collateral review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/98-3060c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Sexton were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Was on the brief. The principal question is whether an attorney in the Office of the President. To state the question is to suggest the answer. For the Office of the President is a part of the federal government. The Supreme Court and this court have held that even the constitutionally based executive privilege for presi dential communications fundamental to the operation of the government can be overcome upon a proper showing of need for the evidence in criminal trials and in grand jury proceed ings. There is no basis for treating legal advice different ly from any other advice the Office of the President receives in performing its constitutional functions. The extent to which the communications of White House Counsel are privileged against disclosure to a federal grand jury depends. The main focus of Independent Counsel Starr's inqui ry had been on financial transactions involving President Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas. That the privilege is qualified in the grand jury context and may be overcome upon a sufficient showing of need for the subpoenaed communications and unavailability from other sources. [[ ]]. [[ ]] the Office of the President [[ ]] appealed the order granting the motion to compel Lindsey's testimony. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-3080b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David G. With them on the brief were Laura S. Owen moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment charging tax evasion and related crimes on the ground that the indictment was beyond the prosecutorial jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. It gave Indepen dent Counsel Starr jurisdiction to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Special Division ordered that the Independent Counsel have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prose cute the subject matter with respect to which the Attor ney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. These grants of authority were under 28 U.S.C. s 593(b)(1). Secret Service records indicate that James Riady had made several visits to the White House in the days before the payment to Hubbell was made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955198.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B1F8160B8A5996D88256D13006C1770/$file/0115345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Koerner has pursued only his claim that he was denied a direct appeal from his original conviction. Finding that our analysis is controlled by a recent en banc decision of this Court. Holding that the Nevada Supreme Court did not rely on an independent and adequate state ground and that Koerner's denial of direct appeal claim is therefore not procedurally defaulted. ACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Kelly Koerner is guilty of a brutal murder. He found his ex wife as she was leaving her psychotherapist appointment and shot her five times in the head. Is that I was in Washoe County on that date. I was the one that held the gun. Koerner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole the maximum sentence available. The appeal was dismissed as untimely. He stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTYyNDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-6248-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A liberal reading of Dotson's pro se appellate brief suggests that he raises the following challenges to the judgment of dismissal: (1) the district court should not have ruled 2 on the dismissal motion without hearing oral argument. (5) the court erred in ruling that Dotson's Bivens claim for money damages and his equitable action for reinstatement were precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955198.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/009004.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's orders as to all claims regarding the guilt phase of Marshall's trial. We will remand for further evidentiary development as to his claim that his attorney was ineffective in the penalty phase. Was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for having hired someone to murder his wife. Maria and her husband both were examined by a physician to qualify for an additional insurance policy. Marshall was hit on the head and Maria was fatally shot. We will reprise the facts at some length as they provide a necessary background for understanding much of our analysis. Marshall mentioned that he was seeking an out of town investigator to track missing casino winnings that he had given to his wife. Since Toms River was a small community where news traveled quickly. Marshall's only contact with McKinnon was through telephoning Cumber both at home and at the hardware store. McKinnon had a person whose name really was Jimmy Davis sign for the money each time. The numerous telephone conversations were. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1913p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the approval of the settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit against Prudential Life Insurance Company alleging deceptive sales practices affecting over 8 million claimants throughout thefifty states and the District of Columbia. The class is comprised of Prudential policyholders who allegedly were the victims of fraudulent and misleading sales practices employed by Prudential's sales force. Each cause of action is based on fraud or deceptive conduct. There are no allegations of personal injury. There are no futures classes. The relief awarded includes full compensatory damages consisting of what plaintiffs thought they were purchasing from the insurance agent. There is no cap on the amount of compensatory damages for those who qualify. Although punitive damages are not included in the settlement. Federal subject matter jurisdiction is properly grounded on the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. 6 supplemental jurisdiction is proper because all of the claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/99-8089.htm">99-8089 -- STATE OF WYOMING V. U.S. -- 02/07/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA2MzEtYmtfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0631-bk_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Extends to vessels that have not been arrested within the district court's jurisdiction. Extends to vessels that have not been arrested within the court's jurisdiction. Millennium Seacarriers was formed to hold the capital stock of various vesselowning subsidiaries (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-5254a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0141p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was preempted by. Holding that it did not have jurisdiction to review the MPSC's order under 42 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6). Federal law. where the agency rule or action giving rise to the controversy is final and not contingent upon future uncertainties or intervening agency action. The challenged order was the product not of § 252 proceedings. It is presumably because § 252(e)(6) does not provide GTE with an adequate assurance of federal review that the MPSC does not seriously defend on appeal the district court's conclusion that §252(e)(6) satisfies Thunder Basin because it defers. The MPSC argues that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9725.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 3 4 the citation is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2323.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This matter is before the en banc court to review issues emanating from the panel opinion in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. The underlying facts relating to the parties and the issues are fully described in the panel opinion and are therefore unnecessary to reiterate here. The en banc court is divided over the outcome of this case. The en banc court holds that courts in this Circuit must recognize that any preliminary injunction fitting within one of the disfavored categories must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course. Movants seeking such an injunction are not entitled to rely on this Circuit's modified likelihood of success on the merits standard. A majority of the en banc court is of the view that the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction in this case should be affirmed. The decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to grant UDV's request for a preliminary injunction is hereby AFFIRMED. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013447.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1304o.html">UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER V. G.D. SEARLE & CO.,INC., ET AL. [ORDER]<BR></A><BR> Filed a petition for rehearing en banc for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the petition were <u>Emily A. Filed an opposition to the petition for defendants <span class=SpellE>appellees</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the opposition were <u>Richard G. Becker</u> and <u>Daniel L. <span class=SpellE>Reisner</span></u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the opposition was <u>Robert L. <span class=SpellE>Baechtold</span></u>. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Susan M. <span class=SpellE>Spaeth</span></u> and <u>Madison C. <span class=SpellE>Jellins</span></u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Mso bidi font family: </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013347.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0875p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated interlocutory cross appeals before us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1993) present an interesting and important question of maritime law: whether state wrongful death and survival statutes are displaced by a federal maritime rule of decision concerning the remedies available for the death of a recreational boater occurring within state territorial waters. [fn1] which are explicitly excluded from the reach of the Death on the High Seas Act. The remedies at issue are loss of society. Was killed in a boating accident in the waters off Puerto Rico. Fashioned a federal common law rule applicable to cases involving the death of a non seaman in territorial waters under which future earnings and punitive damages are not recoverable but damages for loss of society or support are. Each party sought certification to appeal the portion of the court's ruling that was unfavorable. Our analysis of the Supreme Court's maritime wrongful death jurisprudence reveals that there is no federal substantive policy with which state wrongful death or survival statutes conflict here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/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="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-11145.man.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR> The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0967p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings. We will limit the triable issues on remand to a determination of: (1) the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/98-3060b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Sexton were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Was on the brief. The principal question is whether an attorney in the Office of the President. To state the question is to suggest the answer. For the Office of the President is a part of the federal government. The Supreme Court and this court have held that even the constitutionally based executive privilege for presidential communications fundamental to the operation of the government can be overcome upon a proper showing of need for the evidence in criminal trials and in grand jury proceedings. There is no basis for treating legal advice differently from any other advice the Office of the President receives in performing its constitutional functions. The extent to which the communications of White House Counsel are privileged against disclosure to a federal grand jury depends. The main focus of Independent Counsel Starr's inquiry had been on financial transactions involving President Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas. That the privilege is qualified in the grand jury context and may be overcome upon a sufficient showing of need for the subpoenaed communications and unavailability from other sources. [[ ]]. [[ ]] the Office of the President [[ ]] appealed the order granting the motion to compel Lindsey's testimony. </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/971723.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree that the ordinance is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the district court. Minors may participate in any activity during curfew hours if they are accompanied by a parent. The ordinance exempts minors who are engaged in interstate travel. Are on the sidewalk abutting their parents' residence. Or are involved in an emergency. The ordinance does not affect minors who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/99-11145.opn.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR> The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E5F3A673466BE058825734D0052AF1C/$file/0399010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></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-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/99-11145.opn.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR> The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-11145.man.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR> The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5081a.html">ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, ET AL. V. GALE A. NORTON<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were </P> <BR WP= </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/01/01-3081.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question before us in this appeal is a narrow procedural one: can this court review the district court's decision to remand the case to the state court in which it was originally filed? We conclude that the best way to interpret the district court's order is as one finding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over the claims that were 2 Nos. 01 3081 & 01 3418 remanded. Even if we are wrong and the order was simply a decision to remand all supplemental state claims to the state court. We would exercise our jurisdiction to find that there was no abuse of discretion in that decision. Was filed in Illinois state court by injured passengers and the estates of those killed as a result of the collision. The additional defendants were the manufacturers. Two from that group are relevant to this appeal: Illinois Central. GE claimed that any lawsuit these plaintiffs were bringing was inevitably and necessarily based on a federal question. Thus removal was available under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b).). Which is a federal instrumentality. </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/00-5081a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lois J. With him on the brief were Dennis Gingold. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment delineating appellants' trust obligations to IIM trust benefi ciaries and injunctive relief to ensure that such trust obli gations are carried out. The district court concluded that the federal government and its officers have been derelict in their duties. Notwithstanding the fact that appel lants have taken significant steps towards the discharge of the federal government's fiduciary obligations. Appellants clearly have yet to fulfill their trust duties. The relief ordered was well within the district court's equitable powers. This is undeniable. Such duties are grounded in the very nature of the government Indian relationship. It is equally clear that the federal government has failed time and again to discharge its fiduciary duties. There is no dispute that appellants. Have failed to discharge fully their fiduciary obligations. The issue we confront is whether the district court properly delineated the contours of the obligations owed by the Interior Secretary. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-2136.htm">00-2136 -- JOSEPH A. V. INGRAM -- 01/07/2002<BR></A><BR> <a href= </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were William R. With her on the brief were Thomas L. Of counsel on the brief was Jason Roberts. Are not money mandating for purposes of the Samish claims. These claims are not within the trial court's Tucker Act or Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction. That the Samish claims to federal benefits for the 1969 to 1996 period are not time barred. We therefore reverse the dismissal of count two on limitations grounds and remand for further proceedings to determine whether the remaining statutes underlying the claim are money mandating. That but for federal misconduct they would have received federal benefits since 1969. The counterfactual ­ that they would otherwise have been acknowledged ­ is the first element to their claims for benefits between 1969 and 1996. For thirty three years the Samish have. More generally concerning the justiciability of federal recognition. 04 5042 2 Federal recognition or acknowledgement is a prerequisite to an Indian tribe's right to claim benefits under federal statutes. 25 C.F.R. § 83.2 (2005). </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/August2002/012782.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue on appeal is whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania waived its sovereign immunity by accepting certain federal funds for the Department of Corrections. We will reverse in part and affirm in part. George Koslow was hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a water treatment plant supervisor for the State Correctional Institute in Graterford. He was dismissed for being unable to perform </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054997p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tomko was also ordered to undergo twenty2 eight days of in house treatment for alcohol abuse. This sentence is unreasonable in light of the circumstances of this case and the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It was therefore an abuse of discretion for the District Court to impose it and we will vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing. Inc. is classified as a flow through </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/993952P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attempted to move toward this goal is by requiring the incumbent owner of a local telephone network to provide network access to its would be competitors. The incumbent is required to negotiate in good faith with its competitor. The state commission must ensure that the agreement is consistent with certain requirements of the Act. State courts do not have jurisdiction to review decisions of state commissions </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/98-4230.ma2.html">RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)<BR></A><BR> Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976</P> <P> This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson ( </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/98-4230.ma2.html">RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)<BR></A><BR> Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976</P> <P> This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson ( </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/01/04/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue before us in this appeal is whether Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in maintaining the independence and impartiality of Minnesota's judiciary. Were not impermissibly vague. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that judges </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/200511628reh2.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. The Emergency Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. Pryor Jr. did not participate in the consideration of the Petition because he is recovering from surgery performed on Monday. An axiom in the study of law is that </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/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="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/99-4176.opn.html">DREW V. DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (7/18/2002, NO. 99-4176)<BR></A><BR> Drew argues first that his petition was not time barred under the one year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/99-4176.opn.html">DREW V. DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (7/18/2002, NO. 99-4176)<BR></A><BR> Drew argues first that his petition was not time barred under the one year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216640.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 physicians are suing many of this country's largest HMOs. The court held that certain claims were arbitrable. This order was slightly modified in In re Managed Care Litig. The district court certified a class in an order which is currently on appeal before this court. Whether the plaintiffs have adequately stated any claims. Or the merits of those claims An important point is that. It does not necessarily mean that arbitration of such a claim is prohibited or illegal. If this is done without the other party's consent. The result is a legal nullity. The first modification was in response to an inconsistency in its original opinion that the defendants pointed out. The second modification was made due to the subsequent history of 2 3 2 1 * procedural history leading up to them are not immediately relevant to this appeal. Are not being challenged here. The only claims remaining were those the court had ruled non arbitrable. The substance of these arbitration orders is not currently before us on appeal. The only important fact about the arbitration orders is that they designated some claims as arbitrable. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0447p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.1 Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the displays were unconstitutional. Shortly after the complaint was filed. Some of which were excerpted. Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' motion by arguing that the new displays were not similar to the previous displays. Contended that the </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=00-2326B.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <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.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="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042744p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Barbara Schwartz Lee and Bernard Lee This appeal was argued before the panel of Chief Judge Scirica. The quorum was reconstituted to include Judge Smith and Judge Stapleton after the elevation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court and the death of Judge Rosenn. The case was reargued before the reconstituted panel on April 26. At issue in this World War II reparations case is whether a suit seeking additional funds for victims of Nazi era wrongs is justiciable. We will reverse and remand. Legal redress was largely unavailable to 6 the victims of these crimes for nearly half a century1 because their claims against the German government and German companies were barred or deferred by various international agreements and treaties. The treaty was silent on the issue of private individuals' war related claims against the German government and German companies. The seventeen founding members were Allianz AG. Leading negotiations on the German side were Chancellor Schroeder's Envoy and Chief German Negotiator. The goal was to create a foundation (a reparations fund) to compensate Nazi era victims and to fund ongoing projects to prevent religious and ethnic intolerance in Germany. </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.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="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/96a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The Question Presented This is a direct criminal appeal by a convicted Tennessee state judge. Section 242 was adopted as a codification of prior law in 1874 during the period of Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. It criminalizes without any further definition the willful </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order to require the defendants to transport Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo to a hospital to reestablish nutrition and hydration and for any medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. The district court entered a careful order which is attached as an Appendix to this opinion. Plaintiffs have also petitioned this Court to grant the same injunctive relief under the All Writs Act. Although we ordinarily do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders granting or denying temporary restraining orders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F63C3857EBE8263588256E9F007CAC71/$file/0235587.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the Ashcroft Directive is unlawful and unenforceable because it violates the plain language of the CSA. The petitions for review are granted. I We have original jurisdiction over </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order to require the defendants to transport Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo to a hospital to reestablish nutrition and hydration and for any medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. The district court entered a careful order which is attached as an Appendix to this opinion. Plaintiffs have also petitioned this Court to grant the same injunctive relief under the All Writs Act. Although we ordinarily do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders granting or denying temporary restraining orders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/95-6861.opa.html">HARRIS V. JAMES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. Alleging that Alabama's Medicaid plan was not in compliance with a federal regulation requiring State Medicaid plans to ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. Because the State does not challenge the district court's conclusion that the plan was not in compliance with the regulation. We wrote:<p> Medicaid is a cooperative venture of the state and federal governments. A state which chooses to participate in Medicaid submits a state plan for the funding of medical services for the needy which is approved by the federal government. <p> <p> (a) Specify that the Medicaid agency will ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. And<p> <p> (b) Describe the methods that the agency will use to meet this requirement.<p> <p> 42 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1258a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/96-2278.htm">96-2278 -- K.L. V. VALDEZ -- 08/12/1999<BR></A><BR> Sixteen mentally or developmentally disabled children who are or were in the custody of the state of New Mexico. Brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that defendants have failed to provide protections and therapeutic services required by federal statutes and the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class comprised of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1071.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The action in the case at hand was a civil rights action. The successful claims were of constitutional dimension. Other claims were less successful. That they were entitled to even more. The long history of this hard fought litigation will not be repeated here. It is adequately told in the following opinions: Schneider v. The Colegio protests that there should have been no award at all for two reasons. Schneider was representing himself as well as Ramos and this. Plaintiffs are not prevailing parties. The fee award is simply too high for a number of reasons. Questions of law regarding the award of attorney's fees are reviewed de novo. The award is reviewed with deference and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/95-6861.opa.html">HARRIS V. JAMES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. Alleging that Alabama's Medicaid plan was not in compliance with a federal regulation requiring State Medicaid plans to ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. Because the State does not challenge the district court's conclusion that the plan was not in compliance with the regulation. We wrote:<p> Medicaid is a cooperative venture of the state and federal governments. A state which chooses to participate in Medicaid submits a state plan for the funding of medical services for the needy which is approved by the federal government. <p> <p> (a) Specify that the Medicaid agency will ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. And<p> <p> (b) Describe the methods that the agency will use to meet this requirement.<p> <p> 42 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0024p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose primary assets are voting and nonvoting stock in Ervin Industries. Who have interests in two of the three trusts. Are the other beneficiaries of the voting stock trust. The essence of her claim was that Bank One's lending relationship with Ervin Industries caused Bank One to have a conflict of interest and abdicate its responsibilities as trustee in the course of three business transactions. We conclude that dismissal was proper. The Trusts and the Parties There are three trusts involved in this litigation. Two of these trusts are testamentary. The first testamentary trust was created by John Ervin. Ervin Industries is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. Is its current president. The primary asset of Ervin's testamentary trust was Ervin Industries' Class A voting stock. His daughter and four grandchildren are the income beneficiaries. Are parties to this suit. This substantial trust was divided into five separate trusts in 1987 so that each beneficiary had his or her own trust. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0080p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are eight small power producing companies. Conditions and interpretation of which is governed by a complex state and federal regulatory scheme. Plaintiffs contend that Consumers Energy is not paying them contractually agreed upon amounts. They have sought relief in several different forums over the past several years. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the district court properly declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Plaintiffs argue on appeal that the complaint was not one solely for declaratory judgment and the district court erred in treating it as such. I. Plaintiffs are eight small power producers that sell power to Consumers Energy Company. The sale of power from these small producers is governed by a complex set of federal and state regulations. Plaintiffs are nonutility power producers known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></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="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/022524.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This civil action was brought in the District Court for the District of New Jersey by a consortium of media groups seeking access to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1979.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Sheketoff & Homan was on brief. Was on brief. Sean's parentage was an ongoing source of friction in what charitably can be called a stormy relationship. Shanahan testified that Sean awoke while she was preparing the evening meal. What happened next is hotly disputed. There is little disagreement as to subsequent events. Shanahan noticed that Sean's face was puffy. The investigating officer consulted with the pathologist who performed the autopsy and ascertained that Sean's injuries could not have occurred in this manner. The petitioner strove to show that Sean exhibited symptoms of a head injury prior to the time that Darlene claimed to have seen the petitioner heave the baby into the air. The presence of so called cold symptoms before dinner on October 2 symptoms that the petitioner insists were in fact indicia of cranial trauma took on vital importance. She first noticed that Sean was not feeling well later that evening. The petitioner's counsel countered that a reference to the second statement was proper because it impeached Shanahan's explanation for the inconsistency between her trial testimony and her October 7 account. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001481.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because a state's sovereign immunity is not so fleeting as to depend upon the forum in which the state is sued. The judgment of the FMC is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss it. Passengers may gamble on board the ship while it is in international waters. The South Carolina State Ports Authority has a policy of refusing to berth ships whose primary purpose is gambling. Only so long as gambling is not their primary purpose. The SCSPA refused to give the M/V TROPIC SEA a berthing space at the port of Charleston because it claimed the ship's primary purpose was to facilitate gambling. Believing that it was being singled out for unfair treatment. This court held that the SCSPA is protected by South Carolina's sovereign immunity because it is an arm of the state. The doctrine that a sovereign could not be sued without its consent was universal in the States when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19994176.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Drew argues first that his petition was not timebarred under the one year statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></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-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971853A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which requires that a minor who decides to have an abortion inform one of her parents twenty four 2 hours prior to performance of the procedure. Only hours before this law was to become effective. Is facially constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. A contrary holding that the People of Virginia are forbidden by the Constitution of the United States from requiring that the responsible mother and father of a pregnant teenage daughter even be told of the life defining decision their own daughter confronts we are convinced. Of will. The Act was to become effective at 12:01 Tuesday morning. The Act is a parental notice statute. Notice of the anticipated abortion is provided to one of the minor's parents. In circumstances in which either an abortion is immediately necessary to prevent the 3 mother's death or there is insufficient time to permit notification without exposing the minor to serious health risk. Authorization of an abortion without parental notification for a minor who shows that she is mature and capable of giving informed consent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BCF336EBF7A5753488256D5100821E1A/$file/0055585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At the heart of this case is a disappointed litigant's attempt to obtain in federal court the very relief denied to him in state court. Is the functional equivalent of an appeal of the state court decision. A result that is inconsistent with the Rooker Feldman doctrine. A federal district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court. The case was transferred to then Superior Court Judge William Rylaarsdam. Bianchi's appeal was assigned to a panel that included nowJustice Rylaarsdam. At the time Bianchi's case was assigned to be heard before the appellate panel. Once the motion is made. The judge is automatically disqualified. No assessment of prejudice is undertaken. 1 BIANCHI v. Claiming that Justice Rylaarsdam's presence on the panel violated his federal and state constitutional right to due process and was contrary to California procedural rules. Bianchi sought to have the Court of Appeal vacate its opinion and reassign his appeal to a different panel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></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="651"></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-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/410347FABA0293F388257251006DF1D1/$file/0510067.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR> The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/012468p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge.1 This en banc court is presented with two cases consolidated on appeal. We will affirm the District Court's order in Bendolph. We will reverse and remand to the District Court. Bendolph's petition was untimely. The Clerk of the Supreme Court was unaware of this. The Clerk of the Supreme Court mistakenly believed the petition for certiorari was timely.4 A year later. This too was untimely: Bendolph was obligated under the AEDPA's one year statute of limitations to have filed his motion by August 4. Bendolph did not get the benefit of tolling for the time the petition was under consideration by the Supreme Court because the petition was untimely and therefore not properly filed. 164 (3d Cir. 2003) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415585.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was filed in 2001. Was consolidated with another case against the Monsanto Company filed in April 2002. Blair and Trussell's current law firms are Blair & Parsons. We refer to these parties collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM0NTQtY3IgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-3454-cr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal calls upon us to decide whether a district court's sentence can be upheld as reasonable when it is based solely on the district court's policy disagreement with how the United States Sentencing Guidelines treat crack cocaine offenses as compared to powder cocaine offenses. We are now compelled to reverse. We hold that district courts do not have the authority to reject unilaterally the 100:1 ratio on policy grounds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/95-6429.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)<BR></A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries.</P> <P> In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins.</P> <P> Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments.</P> <P> Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR> The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM3NzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3770-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of certain Connecticut banking laws against Wachovia Mortgage on the ground that the state laws are preempted by the National Bank Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/95-6429.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)<BR></A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries.</P> <P> In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins.</P> <P> Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments.</P> <P> Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were </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/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="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116901.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Jerry Paul Henderson ( </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/Nov1998/98a2010p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S 1400 et seq. (1994 & Supp. 1997) (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.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-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0040p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the arbitrator was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/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="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7165a.html">BROWN ANTHONY ET AL V. PRO FTBL INC<BR></A><BR> </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.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-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0283p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of federal crimes in the Northern District of Ohio and incarcerated in Kentucky. Roman was transferred from a federal prison in Kentucky to an INS detention facility in the Western District of Louisiana. Although Roman was being detained in the Western District of Louisiana at the time. He filed the habeas corpus petition in the district where he resided prior to his incarceration and where he was convicted of the crimes underlying his removal the Northern District of Ohio. We VACATE the district court's decision to grant Roman habeas corpus relief and REMAND to the district court with instructions to determine whether the Cleveland District Director and the INS Commissioner are proper respondents to Roman's petition. In the event that the district court concludes that these officials are not proper respondents. Roman is a 46 year old native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. Was last admitted to the United States on February 8. Roman is married and has six children who are United States citizens. </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/May2001/002185.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were subject to the class settlement. Appellants have presented this Court with thr ee issues on appeal. While Appellants are subject to the class settlement. Therefore are enjoined from pursuing any claims that fall within that settlement. They are not enjoined from pursuing. Are collectively referr ed to as the </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/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-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM0NTQtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3454-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal calls upon us to decide whether a district court's sentence can be upheld as reasonable when it is based solely on the district court's policy disagreement with how the United States Sentencing Guidelines treat crack cocaine offenses as compared to powder cocaine offenses. We are now compelled to reverse. We hold that district courts do not have the authority to reject unilaterally the 100:1 ratio on policy grounds. </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/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5374a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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/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="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033392p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ESQUIRE McDermott Will & Emery 227 West Monroe Street. This case involves twelve1 consolidated appeals from the District Court's order approving Combustion Engineering's bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization under 11 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.2 We will vacate and remand. The state and federal judicial systems have struggled with an avalanche of asbestos lawsuits. The difficulties with asbestos litigation have been well documented by RAND and others.3 Efforts to resolve the asbestos problem through global settlement class actions under Fed. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(1)(B) have so far been unsuccessful. Mounting asbestos liabilities have pushed otherwise viable companies into bankruptcy. The centerpiece of the Plan is an injunction in favor of Combustion Engineering that channels all of its asbestos claims to a post confirmation trust (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </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/04a0248p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On his claim that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated at his first degree murder trial when the prosecutor. (2) to the extent that the state courts on direct review would have found that petitioner procedurally defaulted his Confrontation Clause claim as a result of trial counsel's failure to object to the underlying violation at trial. The ineffective assistance of trial counsel would have excused any such default. (3) petitioner had not procedurally defaulted his Confrontation Clause claim before the state courts on collateral review because the state procedural ground upon which the state courts denied petitioner leave to appeal was inadequate to bar federal habeas review. That this violation was not harmless error. That the prior state court denial of petitioner's Confrontation Clause claim on the merits was an unreasonable application of the pertinent. Petitioner was arrested and charged with the first degree murder of Shawn Stalworth. Who had been shot to death earlier that day as he was leaving his house in Battle Creek. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8D7E9174FBB65B488256E68007C56C1/$file/0215113.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The other proceeding is a disciplinary action initiated by this court after we received notice of Gadda's suspension from practice by the State Bar Court. Gadda argues that any reciprocal discipline imposed by the BIA or by this court based on the State Bar Court's suspension order is invalid because the Supreme Court of California lacked jurisdiction to discipline him. I Gadda was admitted to the California State Bar in 1975. He was admitted to practice law and became a member of the bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He was also admitted to practice before the GADDA v. ASHCROFT 4031 Board of Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F89E65592EFC3CCC88256E5A00707C90/$file/9956581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MTA is the statutorily created regional transportation planning. The suit alleged that MTA was spending a disproportionately large portion of its budget on rail lines and suburban bus systems that would primarily benefit white suburban commuters. The lawsuit was triggered by MTA's decision to spend several hundred million dollars on a new rail line. After over two years of discovery and just before a trial was scheduled to begin. The decree set forth specific </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/83DD75F5841659F188256ED7004B7170/$file/0215113.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was disbarred from the practice of law before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(1)(A). 2004 order and opinion is amended as follows: The two paragraphs on slip op. 4046 47 that read: 9592 GADDA v. Respondent shall file notices of withdrawal in all cases pending in this court in which he is counsel of record. R. 46 2(g). are deleted. Respondent Gadda shall file notices of withdrawal in all cases pending in this court in which he is listed as counsel of record as of June 1. Gadda's motion is denied. Failure to comply with this order within the time permitted will result in the imposition of monetary sanctions of not less than $1. The other proceeding is a disciplinary action initiated by this court after we received notice of Gadda's suspension from practice by the State Bar Court. Gadda argues that any reciprocal discipline imposed by the BIA or by this court based on the State Bar Court's suspension order is invalid because the Supreme Court of California GADDA v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4C6ADF805502D9CC88256AB9004E001E/$file/9956581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MTA is the statutorily created regional transportation planning. The suit alleged that MTA was spending a disproportionately large portion of its budget on rail lines and suburban bus systems that would primarily benefit white suburban commuters. The lawsuit was triggered by MTA's decision to spend several hundred million dollars on a new rail line. After over two years of discovery and just before a trial was scheduled to begin. The decree set forth specific </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bates was on brief for the Ellenwoods. Was on brief for the State of Maine. McGill were on brief for Exxon Shipping Company. Was removed from his position as chief engineer of another Exxon oil tanker. Relying primarily on the company's previous written policy that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992619.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The trustees (the new trustees)1 of the Transportation Communications Interna1 tional Union Staff Retirement Plan (the Plan) and the named representatives of the class2 agreed to the elimination of cost of living 2 adjustment ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6787031248DE101D88257146007CCCDF/$file/0655109.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued and was on the briefs for the appellants. Were also on the briefs for the appellants. Argued and was on the briefs for the appellees. Were also on the briefs for the appellees. (2) a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07F5FC12B8A98D6988256D35005181DB/$file/0135419.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Berzon was drawn to replace Judge Henry A. Adopted for this litigation for reasons that will appear assert that they performed espionage activities on behalf of the United States against a former Eastern bloc country. The United States will neither confirm nor deny the Does' allegations. Their action is either appropriate only in the Court of Federal Claims or precluded by the venerable doctrine enunciated in Totten v. That the facts as alleged by the Does are true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to their case. Are all. The Does allege that they were citizens of an Eastern bloc country formerly considered an adversary of the United States. Doe approached a person **Part II of the opinion is authored by Judge Canby. The Does recount that after this request was made. The Does further allege that the agents assured them that this assistance was approved at the highest level of authority at the CIA and was mandated by U.S. law. The Does state that although they were initially reluctant to conduct espionage activities. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117133ord2.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. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. The United States Supreme Court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/02-2214.htm">02-2214 -- CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- 07/27/2004<BR></A><BR> We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. <p> The heart of this dispute is a 2001 Solicitation for Offers issued by Interior for the provision of office space to house the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. 072 provides </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-5350a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 5350 Abigail Alliancea28a.odl.wpd
639 OPINION/ORDER
Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are
637 OPINION/ORDER
The district court determined that removal was proper because the claims against the Union presented a federal question. The parties have cross appealed. The Union and the individual defendants repeatedly assured the retirees that their health insurance benefits were not a topic of negotiation and that the retirees did not need their Nos. 03 4026 & 03 4027 own representation in the negotiations with ISW. 3 On August 7. The district court determined that the retirees' state law claims against the Union were subject to complete preemption because any purported 4 Nos. 03 4026 & 03 4027 duty of the Union to represent the retirees during ISW's bankruptcy process was derived from and was dependent on federal law. The authorized representative of those persons receiving any retiree benefits covered by any collective bargaining agreement to which that labor organization is a signatory. Determines that different representation of such persons is appropriate. 11 U.S.C. § 1114(c)(1). The district court applied cases in which courts have held that fair duty of representation claims are federal in character.
637 01-2301 -- U.S. V. HAHN -- 03/04/2004

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

637 OPINION/ORDER
The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of Counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus.
637 OPINION/ORDER
The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment 2 under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus.
637 GLOCK V. SINGLETARY

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Glock v. A panel of this court granted relief from the sentence based on Glock's claim that the trial court's jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague. Which was that the admission into evidence of a confession he made together with his codefendant violated his Confrontation Clause rights under <i>Cruz v. Were convicted in Florida of the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. Which was recorded by a court reporter. Stating that the murder was Glock's idea. The two men agreed that the entire statement accurately recounted the incident.<p> Glock and Puiatti were tried together. Were admitted in evidence. No limiting instruction was requested or given with respect to the joint confession. One of the aggravators was that the murder was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public. </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//sept95/91-3528.ma2.html">GLOCK V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Glock v. A panel of this court granted relief from the sentence based on Glock's claim that the trial court's jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague. Which was that the admission into evidence of a confession he made together with his codefendant violated his Confrontation Clause rights under <i>Cruz v. Were convicted in Florida of the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. Which was recorded by a court reporter. Stating that the murder was Glock's idea. The two men agreed that the entire statement accurately recounted the incident.<p> Glock and Puiatti were tried together. Were admitted in evidence. No limiting instruction was requested or given with respect to the joint confession. One of the aggravators was that the murder was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug03/04-70010-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment 2 under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034220p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are persons who borrowed from the two banks and signed second mortgages. Appellees in this case are the settling parties. Appellants are a number of law firms and plaintiff class members who challenge the District Court's jurisdiction. The alleged mastermind of the scheme was the Shumway Organization ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul06/04-10245-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of Counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/94-8607.opa.html">BARTELS V. ALABAMA COMMERCIAL COLLEGE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bartels v. Are former students of the now defunct Alabama Commercial College that did business as Riley Training Institute of Savannah. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. </i> financed their attendance at the school.<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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AE8C752D9F8836788256CAE00581170/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. 578 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. The Problem of Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation. SediThe </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//june95/94-8607.opa.html">BARTELS V. ALABAMA COMMERCIAL COLLEGE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bartels v. Are former students of the now defunct Alabama Commercial College that did business as Riley Training Institute of Savannah. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. </i> financed their attendance at the school.<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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956429.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Including: The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (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/1257B4A0E455128D882571E600582243/$file/0215475.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The California Court of Appeal's findings are </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/200414564.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reasoning that Giglio's materiality element was unsatisfied. Since there was no reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. We are convinced that the Florida court's disposition of Ventura's Giglio claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. I. Peter Ventura was convicted by a Florida jury of the 1981 murder of Robert Clemente and sentenced to death. Clemente's body was discovered on April 15. The body was found in a truck bearing the logo of Clemente's employer. Ventura was arrested in Chicago and McDonald was arrested in Florida. Both were indicted for first degree murder on June 30. Ventura was released on bond in Chicago while awaiting extradition. When he was apprehended in Austin. McDonald was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in the Northern District of Illinois in 1983 on charges arising out of his involvement in a Chicago bank fraud scheme. He pled guilty and was sentenced to three consecutive five year terms of Jerry Wright was tried and convicted of the first degree murder of Robert Clemente in February. </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/0E19D5FA5D1D35B088256E0600015A55/$file/0355785.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues we are required to confront are new. 1 scores of individuals who were captured by the American military during its operations in Afghanistan. The captured individuals were labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3DC0E87BDDA3BAB88256EB300548E33/$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-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-6198.opa.html">REDWING CARRIERS, INC. V. SARALAND APTS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Redwing Carriers. Redwing sued the Appellees claiming they are liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. (Saraland) Site is a 5.1 acre parcel of land located within the southern Alabama community of Saraland. Redwing was in the business of hauling materials used in construction and other industries. Trucks were cleaned out. The ground at the Site became contaminated with hazardous chemicals which have combined to form a black. Bolton were partners in Saraland Limited. Meador completed construction of the Saraland Apartments complex in May 1974.<p> Construction of the complex was subsidized by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide low income housing. Marcrum denies Redwing's claim that the company is the daily. The complex's parking lot was repaved. Coit and Roar are responsible for managing the business of the Partnership. Meador were liable under </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/429E2096892C3D8388256E00005FEB65/$file/0355785final.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues we are required to confront are new. 1 scores of individuals who were captured by the American military during its operations in Afghanistan. The captured individuals were labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53333A1C2A376D138825723B005F9EE5/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was denied entry. The Kamehameha Schools were created through a charitable testamentary trust. Plaintiff argues that he was denied admission because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Factual Background Historical Context2 The islands of Hawaii are geographically isolated in the South Pacific Ocean and were originally settled sometime between 1 and 750 A.D. The immediate result of that first encounter was that Native Hawaiians were introduced to Western goods and Western diseases. The first treaty was signed in 1826. Additional treaties were signed in 1849. Was commercially desirable. Western economic domination of the Hawaiian Islands was followed by an interest in establishing political control. Was overthrown by a small group of nonHawaiians. Who were assisted in their efforts by the United States Minister. Laws were then enacted suppressing the Hawaiian culture and language and allowing for the displacement of Native Hawaiians from their lands. The Hawaiian language was banned as a medium of instruction in schools. </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//sept96/95-6198.opa.html">REDWING CARRIERS, INC. V. SARALAND APTS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Redwing Carriers. Redwing sued the Appellees claiming they are liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. (Saraland) Site is a 5.1 acre parcel of land located within the southern Alabama community of Saraland. Redwing was in the business of hauling materials used in construction and other industries. Trucks were cleaned out. The ground at the Site became contaminated with hazardous chemicals which have combined to form a black. Bolton were partners in Saraland Limited. Meador completed construction of the Saraland Apartments complex in May 1974.<p> Construction of the complex was subsidized by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide low income housing. Marcrum denies Redwing's claim that the company is the daily. The complex's parking lot was repaved. Coit and Roar are responsible for managing the business of the Partnership. Meador were liable under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0293p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Stokes Creek canal is a channelized stream in western Tennessee. This project is known as the Stokes Creek Restoration Project (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></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-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/97-2868.man.html">RIVERA V. ALLIN (6/23/1998, NO. 97-2868)<BR></A><BR> That is. DISCUSSION</CENTER> </P> <P> Leave to proceed IFP is. The general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee. <EM>See</EM> 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914(a) (West Supp.1998). By a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security thereof.</P> <P>28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1994).</P> <P> On April 26. 385 (5th Cir.1996) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F3D0EAED61F52D5882571B10081495F/$file/0435210.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs' homes were built with wood foundations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The MHHO Program was designed to These facts. Are taken from Plaintiffs' complaint. Which is presumed true for purposes of this Rule 12(b)(6) proceeding. The families were required to contribute land. Each family was required to make monthly payments in an amount calibrated to their income. The homebuyers were made responsible for maintenance of the house. When the program was formalized in the Indian Housing Act of 1988. The Blackfeet Housing Authority was charged with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/977551.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This habeas corpus case is before us for the third time. Petitioner Larry Gene Hull was convicted of first degree murder in a Pennsylvania state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Hull has sought to have that conviction overturned on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at a pretrial competency hearing. Although the state courts have rejected his ineffectiveness claim. We have held that his counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient. We have also held that Hull procedurally defaulted this claim. The primary issues in the present appeal are whether the Pennsylvania courts have waived Hull's procedural default. If they have. He has demonstrated that his counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under Strickland v. We conclude that the Pennsylvania courts have waived Hull's procedural default and that he thus may bring his claim in federal court. We also conclude that Hull was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to present any of the numerous pieces of available evidence regarding his competency or to challenge the government's single witness at his short competency hearing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/97-2868.man.html">RIVERA V. ALLIN (6/23/1998, NO. 97-2868)<BR></A><BR> That is. DISCUSSION</CENTER> </P> <P> Leave to proceed IFP is. The general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee. <EM>See</EM> 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914(a) (West Supp.1998). By a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security thereof.</P> <P>28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1994).</P> <P> On April 26. 385 (5th Cir.1996) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956429.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issues The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/985429.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was convicted of rape and robbery and sentenced as a persistent offender to life imprisonment with twenty five years of parole ineligibility. The principal issue at trial was the identity of the rapist. The principal evidence was the victim's post hypnotic identification. The state prosecutor made certain improper arguments during jury summation which were addressed by the trial judge with curative instructions. The issue on appeal is whether these improper arguments deprived Moore of his right to a fair trial. 25 year old M.A. was viciously assaulted by a man in the bedroom of her cottage in Somers Point. Despite the man's assurance she would not be hurt if she did as she was told. M.A. remained in her bed for four hours fear ful the man was still in the house. She arranged to have the police called and. While the bedroom was dark. There was enough outside light </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-9361.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GARRISON (1/22/1998, NO. 95-9361)<BR></A><BR> We determine whether the owner and chief executive officer of a home healthcare provider properly was accorded a two level enhancement in her sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abusing a position of public trust by submitting falsified Medicare claims to a fiscal intermediary. Because the two level enhancement for abuse of a position of public trust was improper. Was the owner. Health Care Financing Administration.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BA74308F4A4A6B0882573130055EBFC/$file/0517027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked. Whether the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is unconstitutional. Numerous news reports were written on the crime. Crater and Robinson were tried for robbery. Robinson was convicted on all counts. After learning that Crater was reluctant to accept this deal. Finding no evidence that the state judge harbored </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0213p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams testified that she was awakened by the sound of gunshots at approximately 3:45 in the morning on September 8. Williams testified that Clinkscale then summoned another man ­ apparently his As the facts of this case have been com prehensively recited in previous court decisions. We will highlight only those facts that are dispo sitive of the issues presented in this appe al. 1 The Ho norable D avid W . Williams was able to call 911. Maintained that he could not have committed the crimes as charged because he had spent the entire night of September 7 and morning of September 8 in Youngstown. Where he was living. Attorneys Rogers and Benton were appointed to represent Clinkscale at trial. Have an alibi for which significant corroboration existed. 1998 ­ only a few days before the jury was empaneled ­ when they gave </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/95-9361.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GARRISON (1/22/1998, NO. 95-9361)<BR></A><BR> We determine whether the owner and chief executive officer of a home healthcare provider properly was accorded a two level enhancement in her sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abusing a position of public trust by submitting falsified Medicare claims to a fiscal intermediary. Because the two level enhancement for abuse of a position of public trust was improper. Was the owner. Health Care Financing Administration.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB342847E32C4B7888256C4700551B32/$file/0115901.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are Arizona residents and taxpayers. The action is justiciable in federal court. I. BACKGROUND The statute at issue in this case is Arizona Revised Statute § 43 1089 (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/999005.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thus that our analysis and resolution of Banks's Mills claims was proper. We will endorse the reasoning set forth in the remainder of our prior opinion. I. George Banks was sentenced to death for the murder of thirteen people in Wilkes Barre. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on direct appeal. Which was denied in August of 1999. Finding meritorious Banks's argument that his death sentence was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court reversed a death sentence where there was a substantial probability that a reasonable jury could have understood the sentencing instructions and forms to disallow the consideration of mitigating factors not unanimously found to exist. A reasonable possibility existed that the jurors believed they were precluded from considering mitigating evidence they had not found unanimously. We were presented with the question of whether Mills was applicable for purposes of our collateral review of Banks's conviction and sentence under 3 Teague v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-12833.man.html">SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833)<BR></A><BR> GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1177p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that the relief Deutsch sought was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a1998p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are faced with the question of whether to vacate Hassine's conviction by granting his petition for habeas relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Hassine contends that relief is warranted because the state prosecutor sought to use his post arrest silence for impeachment purposes at trial in violation of the due process principles established in Doyle v. It concluded that any constitutional error was harmless under the standard announced in Brecht v. We also agree that Brecht is the proper standard to apply on collateral review. Because we agree further that the Doyle violation was harmless under Brecht. We will affirm. The store was financed by Hassine's family. Kellet discovered that the drugs were of inferior quality and he became enraged. Was present. She </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/34008B8937E46C0A88256A84007C53B0/$file/9935162.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991831.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While this petition was pending. Because Brown & Root was in essence seeking appellate review of a state court decision by a federal district court in violation of Rooker Feldman. Breckenridge and Booker alleged that they were terminated because of their race in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA). Code § 58 5 1 (Supp. 1999) (only final judgments of circuit courts are appealable to state supreme court). Va. 1995) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></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-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-12833.man.html">SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833)<BR></A><BR> GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F45AD78B33DB95D988256E5A00707BDC/$file/9935162.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/002139.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suit in federal court against a state official where what is at issue is that * The Honorable Arthur L. Will affirm in part and reverse in part the orders of the District Court. Any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected may commence a civil action on his own behalf to compel compliance with this chapter (1) against the United States or any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution which is alleged to be in violation of the provisions of this chapter or of any rule. Or against any other person who is alleged to be in violation of any rule. Or (2) against the Secretary or the appropriate State regulatory authority to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to 3 was also invoked under 28 U.S.C. Defendants in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief are James M. ARIPPA were permitted to intervene as defendants. Seif is the sole named defendant in Counts One through Eight of the eleven count complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/054468P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Spears was arrested. The resulting advisory Guidelines sentencing range was 324 to 405 months' imprisonment. Sufficiency of the Evidence Spears first argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He asserts the witnesses' testimonies were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992443.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 31 the spelling of Justice Frankfurter's name is corrected. Line 3 the citation to Coeur d'Alene Tribe is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="623"></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="623"></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-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033388p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-2788.man.html">KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-2788.man.html">KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1682p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are faced with an apparent conflict between </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2323.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Plaintiffs are three federally recognized Indian Tribes with reservations in sparsely populated areas of northern Wisconsin ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></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="623"></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-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972868.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is. DISCUSSION Leave to proceed IFP is. The general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee. By a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security thereof. The same is generally true of the Supreme Court. 385 (5th Cir.1996) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3795.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Our task is to decide whether the federal district court in Illinois should have abstained as a matter of federal law. Whether the proper response is to continue with the Illinois case. Behind all this is the motion picture financing industry specifically. One of those insurers was Underwriters Reinsurance Company (URC). An Illinois state statute providing for discretionary dismissal of a complaint if there is another action pending between the same parties covering the same claim. It concluded that the Illinois statute was sufficiently </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5354a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2028.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA or Act) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prescribe criteria specifying when public water systems are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56ADB59DAD4DF55388257248007DAED4/$file/0372511.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioners Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Southern California Water Company. Lyons was also on the briefs as attorney for the same party. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same party. 19546 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v. Were on the briefs of petitioner Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Argued the case and was on the briefs of the respondent. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the respondent. Was on the brief of intervenor Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the brief of intervenor Mirant Americas Energy Marketing LP. Will & Emery LLP. Were on the brief of intervenor Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. Argued the case and was on the joint brief of the interve PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-1077.htm">01-1077 -- U.S. V. CONSUMER INSURANCE GROUP -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Modrejewski told Holmes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3DF703F416DC0608882570F40006DDCF/$file/0117424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bea) conclude that the case is ripe for adjudication. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Brought suit in federal district court in diversity against La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993047.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S 2D1.1 because the Government did not prove the substance involved in his criminal offenses was crack cocaine. The court order declared: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></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="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1795p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court that the federal securities claim of one of the investors is barred by the statute of limitations. We disagree with the district court's disposition of the federal securities claim and conclude that the investors have proffered sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to (1) whether the law firm made a statement containing a material omission upon which the investors relied. Even when the lawyer did not sign or endorse the document and the investor is therefore unaware of the lawyer's role in the fraud.1 We will reverse the judgment of 1. We later set forth the following specific requirements to hold such a lawyer liable: (1) the lawyer knows (or is reckless in not knowing) that 3 the district court insofar as it granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment on the federal securities claim as to three of the four investors. We will reverse the judgment of the district court on the investors' common law fraud claim. Which claim was timely as to all four investors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-8022.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for Philip Morris appellants. Were on brief for United States Tobacco Company appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The specific plaintiffs appellants are Philip Morris Incorporated. The specific defendants appellees are L. We consider the statutes' respective texts along with the relevant historical and legislative contexts in which they were enacted. Normally we consider the record evidence with respect to each motion separately </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAEC0F3D7F6C5B7488256F6B007897F0/$file/0215475.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WL (9th Cir. 2004) (unpublished disposition). **This appeal was withdrawn from submission pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller El v. This Opinion was circulated to the panel on October 23. 1 we hold the state court's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1649p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <u>Circuit Judge</u>. <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1649p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting in part petitioner appellee/cross appellant Clifford Smith's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We will vacate the judgment of the district court in part. Smith was convicted offirst degree murder. A third eyewitness identified the car in which Smith and Alston were traveling just after the robbery. Which was later found at the homes of Alston. Items taken from the three robbery victims were later found at the homes of Barrow and Yancey. Although there was evidence that both Alston and Smith carried handguns that day. He wanted the ring </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1616p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200303/02-5251a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/001130.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He ar gues that his federal constitutional right to due process was violated by the introduction at trial of highly pr ejudicial evidence having little probative value and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not adequately prepare for or respond to testimony by the prosecution's psychiatric expert. Who stated that Keller might have suffered from a condition called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021176.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 3 the sentence is corrected to end </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Announcing the judgment of the court: Timothy Lanier Allen was convicted of first degree murder in a North Carolina court and sentenced to death. Allen contends (1) that the short form indictment used by the State was unconstitutional. Jail records that indicated Allen was receiving daily doses of anti withdrawal medication. Was in fact not harmless error. Were violated during jury selection in his State trial and that a Batson hearing should be held. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the North Carolina trial court's instructions on unanimity given to the jury during the sentencing phase was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0943p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who purchased or otherwise beneficially acquired securities that were incorrectly and misleadingly labelled or described as annuities from Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company during the period August 14. Because all of these claims were essentially grounded in fraud. Because federal jurisdiction over one of the claims is exclusive and there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the remaining claims. We hold that the district court erred when it concluded that there is an opportunity for timely and adequate state court review of Plaintiffs' federal securities claims. We will therefore reverse the district court's order dismissing Plaintiffs' case without prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[fn2] I. General Background Mutual Benefit was established in 1845. It was one of the country's largest life insurance companies. Until the late 1970's Mutual Benefit was a relatively conservative institution. These withdrawals were projected to reach $1 billion by the end of the year. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0263p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> REVERSE the district court's denial of the writ with respect to Petitioner's sentence because Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his sentencing. 1 No. 04 3207 Haliym v. Marcellus Williams and Joann Richards were stabbed to death in their apartment located at 49th and Central in Cleveland. Was visiting his father. At the time and was also stabbed. Was indicted on April 6. A motion for leave to file a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was granted. At approximately 10:00 p.m. as he was leaving his father's apartment to go to the store. He was approached by three men who were in an orange Chevette. Was in the apartment. Speights advised appellant that Williams was in. The three entered and were seated. Richards was present with her baby. At that point Speights was knocked down. He was able to observe appellant stabbing Richards. Michael was stabbing Speights. Also present in the apartment was seven year old Albert Richards. He was in the bedroom and came out in response to the noise and observed the stabbings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/023747P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Compact was created and entered into by five member states and was also enacted into law by Congress. Nebraska was selected as the site for the facility. The Commission is a plaintiff in this case. This action was originally brought against Nebraska and the Commission by utility companies from the five Compact states: Entergy Arkansas. The defendants named in the Commission's complaint were the State of Nebraska. The case was tried to the district court for two months. It found that Nebraska had not carried out its obligations under the Compact in good faith and that the Commission was entitled to recover over $97 million for funds and work expended in the thwarted attempt to construct the radioactive waste disposal facility. Some of which were decided against it on earlier appeals. We have already addressed the Compact and related issues in a series of earlier appeals in this case. 207 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000) (Nebraska did not have veto power over low level radioactive waste export permits). V. Each member state is represented on the Commission by one representative and is entitled to a single vote. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0717p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At ultimate issue is the defendant employers' failure to hire the employees engaged at the site from the plaintiff union's hiring hall. The parties have been ceaselessly embroiled in this matter for over eight years. During this time they have appeared before the district court thrice and an arbitrator once. They are now before this Court for the third time. Given what appears to us to be the relatively modest stakes and the fact that the primary point of contention in the case will probably never recur. [fn2] it is unfortunate that their litigation strategies have prevented them from settling. We can only hope that the opinion that follows will edge them toward a swift resolution of their remaining disputes instead of propelling them back to the arbitrator for another round of pugnacious battle. One we will answer in the affirmative. Is whether the district court erred in not applying retrospectively the National Labor Relation Board's decision in John Deklewa & Sons. A host of other questions is also before us. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1428.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was James Caffentzis. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Maria Pagan. McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With him on the brief was Raymond Paretzky. Of counsel was David J. Motions Systems was one of three domestic producers of pedestal actuators. The ITC promptly investigated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1398_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Harrison was convicted of the murders of Stacy Forsee and her two children. He was sentenced to death. Harrison's habeas petition are set forth in the district court's very thorough opinion. Her children Tia (3 1/2 years) and Jordan (21 months) were found among the ruins of the family's charred home. Harrison was charged with arson. Harrison were filed in Posey Circuit Court. Counsel was appointed for Mr. Trial was set for January 6. Not long before Forsee was killed. She told Detectives Gary Gilbert and Larry Rhoades that she was being followed by a man in a suspicious van. That Judge Redwine had been present at Greathouse's home when drugs were being unloaded on Greathouse's property. One defense theory was that members of the local drug community. Judge Redwine was informed by the parties that his name had been mentioned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=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-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-6027.htm">01-6027 -- CARGLE V. MULLIN -- 01/27/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3622_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After the defendants (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-6027.htm">01-6027 -- CARGLE V. MULLIN -- 03/11/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2041.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Lenehan & Iacopino were on consolidated brief. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This appeal arises out of unpardonable misconduct committed by a federal prosecutor who should have known better. Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution is memorialized in a recent opinion of this court. The facts pertaining to the misconduct are recounted in the opinion below. The prosecutors who controlled the case 2 were members of the Justice Department's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/023047p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is one in a long line of disputes between on one side the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/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="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1406.html">XECHEM INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D. ANDERSON CANCER CENTER, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendants <span class=SpellE>appellees</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Marcy Hogan Greer</u> and <u>Robert E. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></sup></span><![endif]></span></span></sup></span></a> <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The only issue on appeal is whether the University is subject to suit in federal court to obtain correction of the <span class=SpellE>inventorship</span> of United States Patents No. 5. Font family:Arial'>The University's motion to dismiss was brought under Fed. P. 12(b)(6) (dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>When dismissal is on the pleadings. The plaintiff's well pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and all reasonable factual inferences are drawn in its favor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>See</u> <u>Albright v. Disputed material facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the complainant).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0319p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The strongest is his claim that the trial court's 1 DANIEL WILSON. That any error in this regard was harmless. We further conclude that Wilson's remaining claims are without merit. Wilson was drinking at the Empire Tavern. He was driving a black Oldsmobile Cutlass and appeared to be alone. That the car was his. Wilson tried to get DeBolt to go out with him and was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0426p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs asked the state defendants to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042096p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Appellants in this case are owners and operators of industrial facilities located throughout the United States that are contaminated with hazardous waste. They admit they are responsible for some of the contamination at these sites (which they cleaned up voluntarily). Allege the United States 3 Government is also responsible for some part. The Supreme Court held that § 113 by its express terms is not available to parties that clean up sites voluntarily. Because appellants are themselves partly responsible for the contamination at the subject sites. Their cleanups were voluntary. It is necessary first to understand the applicable legal framework. CERCLA is a broad remedial statute that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948607.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are former students Honorable George C. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department the Student Loan Higher Education of Education. Assistance Corporation (GHEAC). and the Georgia Higher Education This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. Financed their attendance at the school.1 The GSL program was designed to encourage private lenders to provide educational loans to students. The federal government provides private commercial lenders with a guaranty that a student's educational loan will be repaid even if the student defaults. The institution of higher education ordinarily is not a party to the loan agreement and has no role in the transaction other than to provide the lender with a statement of the student's estimated cost of attendance and financial assistance needs. Provides the private lender with a guaranty that the loan will be repaid even if the student defaults. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1207.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Douglas C. With him on the brief were Peter D. As that boundary is understood in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen v. The other defendants are the Federal Housing Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/77DCF4F385244CAE88257114005B1893/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005 is amended as follows: 1. 2. Footnote six is deleted in its entirety. The first sentence of Part I ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011739.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Panarella does not dispute that the facts alleged in the superseding information are sufficient to charge him with being an accessory after the fact to Loeper's scheme to deprive the public of his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0696p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These questions are extremely important in light of the widespread and increasing use by district courts of confidentiality orders to facilitate settlements. The Newspapers' purpose for intervening was to gain access to the Settlement Agreement which was entered into between Pansy and the Borough. The Newspapers argued that either the Agreement was a judicial record to which it had a right of access. The district court ruled that the Newspapers' motion for intervention was untimely. The district court held that the Agreement was not a judicial record. We will reverse the order of the district court and direct that the Newspapers be permitted to intervene. We will remand the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The standard of review for each issue raised in this appeal will be discussed in the analysis of the issue. He was investigated and later arrested by agents of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office. Pansy was charged with offenses relating to the alleged improper handling of parking meter money. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F912654A654769BD882570DF007BCE38/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude that diversity jurisdiction is proper and that Kroske's age discrimination claim under the WLAD was not preempted. Is a federally chartered National Banking Association that was formed in accordance with the National Bank Act. The Bank is governed by a board of directors. Which is empowered by the Bank's bylaws to elect and discharge officers. Kroske was notified that her branch was not meeting the Bank's goals and quotas for business activity. Although Kroske contends that her branch was the smallest in the area with the fewest employees. That she was short staffed. The other branch managers in the region were in their twenties and thirties. While Kroske was fifty one years old. Kroske contended that she was replaced by an employee who was in his mid twenties and possessed less experience than Kroske. Filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Kroske's state discrimination claim was preempted by the National Bank Act. Contending that she was not an officer under § 24(Fifth) and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BAF0DF04C873FDE88256E5A00707D36/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED3D8E64B695AF1D88256AF7007FBE7A/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/012783p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The en banc District Court held that reciprocal discipline was warranted but limited the term of Surrick's suspension to thirty months. Surrick argues that the imposition of reciprocal discipline was inappropriate because the state proceedings upon which the District Court relied violated his rights of due process and free speech. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. I. Factual Background and Procedural History The facts relevant to Surrick's underlying state court suspension are drawn from the opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Report and Recommendation issued by the initial District Court panel. Surrick and his wife were defendants in Leedom v. A case which involved the foreclosure of a mortgage for which they were sureties. The issue of liability was submitted to the court. In relevant part: It is believed and averred by Movant Surrick that Judge Bradley was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 6 a quotation mark is added before the asterisks. The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superseding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></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="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5147.html">MARATHON OIL COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Griffith L. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Stuart E. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Carolyn D. The Oil Companies brought a new claim alleging that they were entitled to the interest under 28 U.S.C. §&n </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-13138.man.html">MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)<BR></A><BR> Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962788.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: 1 1 Judge Edmondson announces the judgment for the Court in this 3 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity case. We agree with the Northern District of Alabama that suits in by private parties for against ADEA States federal court 6 violations are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. The cases were appealed for us to decide whether Congress abrogated sovereign immunity when it enacted the relevant statutes. 3 Because this appeal presents only questions of law. This appeal is properly before this Court under the collateral order doctrine. The facts of each Plaintiff's claim will not be discussed. Discussion A district a court's order to denying dismiss or a granting motion complaint against a State based on the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity is reviewed by this court de novo. 2507 n.7 (1980) (Eleventh Amendment principles are not applicable to suits in state court.). 10 4 Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause could. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2OThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7698_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cross appeals by certain plaintiffs from so much of the district court's order as * The present caption in these consolidated appeals lists as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1526.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> was on brief. The first is whether the health centers serving those populations have enforceable rights to sue. The second is how a federal court hearing such a prospective claim should proceed when parallel litigation is proceeding in a state court. Such parallel suits are not uncommon. <STRONG></STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D41FC04292422D7288256F87008015E6/$file/0330171.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bruce asserts that the case against her was brought under the wrong statute. Bruce contends that she is an Indian. The government should have charged her under 18 U.S.C. § 1153. We further hold that the court's error was not harmless. Alleged that the victim was an Indian person. Bruce repeatedly argued that she was Indian. She moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it should have been brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1153. Bruce's only defense was her claim of Indian status. Bruce introduced evidence that she is one eighth Chippewa. That her mother is an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Tribe of Oklahoma. That she was born on an Indian Reservation. That two of her children are enrolled members of an Indian tribe. That whenever she was arrested it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962788.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:1 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-13138.man.html">MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)<BR></A><BR> Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/001212.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Introduction We are asked to determine whether the appellant. Is entitled to resentencing because the District Court failed to observe the r equirement of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(C). Accordingly will vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for resentencing. We will not reach the third issue raised on appeal. Thus we do not have jurisdiction to review this aspect of Adams' sentence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1BC4AC7A3CC2CE58825728900823407/$file/0455838.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine whether and if so. Under what circumstances a criminal defendant's retirement benefits are available as a source of funds to compensate crime victims. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1702.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lorincz & Jacobi were on brief for appellee. Debtor's appeal from that decision asks us to do two things: reverse the district court's holding that federal credit unions are nonprofit organizations and hold that educational loans issued to him by creditor appellee TI Federal Credit Union are. We affirm the result achieved by the district court that debtor's loans are nondischargeable and elect not to reach the issue of federal credit unions' nonprofit status. From which DelBonis obtained no direct personal benefit and on which he is the sole obligor. Were acquired from the Texas Instrument Federal Credit Union. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/94-4303.man.html">SNOWDEN V. SINGLETARY (2/18/1998, NO. 94-4303)<BR></A><BR> Because all issues raised by Snowden in his habeas petition were either totally exhausted in state court or were already procedurally barred from further consideration in state court. We address the claims in the petition that were exhausted. Snowden was convicted of five counts of child abuse for acts which allegedly occurred at his home. Snowden was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.</P> <P> Snowden appealed his conviction to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida. That motion was denied by the state trial court without an evidentiary hearing. This report and recommendation was adopted by the district court. Relief was denied. (5) The trial court permitted the State's expert witness to testify that Snowden's counsel was abusive to one of the children during a deposition. That is. Snowden must have raised these claims in state court to allow the state courts the opportunity to rule on the federal issues: the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies.</P> <P> <EM>I. While important in assuring that constitutional rights are observed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/024597p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Based on its determination that Horn's claims against TCI are preempted by the express preemption provision in the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1831.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Woodworth & Evarts LLP were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees Dubois and Matesanz. LLP were on brief for appellee AT&T Corp. Gilday was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. For which he is now serving concurrent life sentences at the Bay State Correctional Center in Norfolk. The relevant facts are related in the light most favorable to Gilday. Gilday alleged that federal and state officials were opening his prison mail and intercepting his telephone communications in a coordinated effort to gather information regarding others involved in the Brighton bank robbery. It is hereby ORDERED. Employees and attorneys of the Department of Correction are enjoined permanently. As they have been amended or may be amended Around the same time. Gilday proceeded with the action against the nonsettling DOC officials. 3 and as they have been construed or may be construed in reported decisions that are binding in this Court or in the state courts of Massachusetts. 2. [mail restrictions] 3. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014463A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arthur Hilts (collectively the Defendants) were convicted of using interstate wires for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud Canada and the Province of Ontario of excise duties and tax revenues relating to the importation and sale of liquor. No doubt this smuggling operation was spawned to supply a black market for liquor in Canada that had been created when. The store owners were not prosecuted for violations of United States Department of Treasury Regulations which required that they record and report bulk sales of alcohol. 1 4 UNITED STATES v. Border crossings were monitored electronically. Several vehicles that were registered to drivers involved in the scheme failed to stop for a second inspection when requested. ATF agents and Royal Canadian Mounted Police also conducted surveillance of David and Carl Pasquantino and their associates loading liquor in Maryland and unloading it in Canada after it was smuggled through Canadian customs. Marked bottles of liquor were recovered in Canada. The Defendants were indicted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></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-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/94-4303.man.html">SNOWDEN V. SINGLETARY (2/18/1998, NO. 94-4303)<BR></A><BR> Because all issues raised by Snowden in his habeas petition were either totally exhausted in state court or were already procedurally barred from further consideration in state court. We address the claims in the petition that were exhausted. Snowden was convicted of five counts of child abuse for acts which allegedly occurred at his home. Snowden was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.</P> <P> Snowden appealed his conviction to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida. That motion was denied by the state trial court without an evidentiary hearing. This report and recommendation was adopted by the district court. Relief was denied. (5) The trial court permitted the State's expert witness to testify that Snowden's counsel was abusive to one of the children during a deposition. That is. Snowden must have raised these claims in state court to allow the state courts the opportunity to rule on the federal issues: the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies.</P> <P> <EM>I. While important in assuring that constitutional rights are observed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EC0DA1401999D9E88256ED900693A89/$file/0330339.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court clerk was to send these reports to the United States Sentencing Commission. We are asked to decide whether the district court exceeded its statutory or inherent authority. The United States argues that we have jurisdiction to consider its direct appeal from the district court's order denying its motion to set aside the Standing Order in this criminal case. Which was one of the first cases in which the Standing Order's requirements were triggered. If appellate jurisdiction is lacking. These questions have divided our panel. We are unanimous as to Sections I and III. Provides insight into how the requirement generally was satisfied: Most districts ask the probation office to submit the sentencing documents. This is. Particularly where the probation office is not involved in the proceeding. The Memorandum of Understanding set forth the complete list of documents to be submitted as part of the sentencing report and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-4979.opa.html">REPUBLIC OF PANAMA V. BCCI HOLDINGS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Republic of Panama v. Background<p> <p> BCCI Holdings is the parent corporation of BCCI S.A. and BCCI Ltd. These foreign defendants were the principal corporations in an international banking group operating in sixty nine countries. They will be referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-4979.opa.html">REPUBLIC OF PANAMA V. BCCI HOLDINGS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Republic of Panama v. Background<p> <p> BCCI Holdings is the parent corporation of BCCI S.A. and BCCI Ltd. These foreign defendants were the principal corporations in an international banking group operating in sixty nine countries. They will be referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3178.htm">97-3178 -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 07/01/1998<BR></A><BR> Singleton was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. A detective of the Wichita Police Department contacted local Western Union agents to determine if drug dealers were using Western Union services to transfer drug money. The records led authorities to a group of people whom they believed were involved in a conspiracy to sell drugs. Further investigation indicated the drug business was begun by men who had moved from California to Wichita. Singleton was identified as one who transferred and received money for the conspiracy. She was the common law wife of Eric Johnson. She was listed as either the sender or recipient on eight wire transfers suspected to have been sent on behalf of the conspiracy. Handwriting experts confirmed that her handwriting was present on paperwork accompanying the eight wire transfers. <p> Ms. Singleton and others were charged in a superseding indictment with multiple counts of money laundering and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The basis for her motion was that the government had impermissibly promised Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1824.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Robin Alexander was on brief. Dailey was on brief. Dana & Gould were on brief. As is often true at the preliminary injunction stage. The record is somewhat scanty. We credit the undisputed facts presented below and adopt the district court's findings as to controverted matters to the extent they are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. PSC is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in New Bedford. Or were PSC retirees and Morse Tool retirees or to consider separately widows of former employees. 3 beneficiaries of. The chief defendant is International Twist Drill (Holdings). Morse Tool was mired in bankruptcy. ITD was the sole voting shareholder. During the period when purchase was under consideration. Became involved in negotiations regarding the company's collective bargaining agreement but ITD was not itself a signatory to that pact. PSC was unable to survive. Then ITD was to make the payments. 5 In granting the injunction. The district court found </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0411p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If the 26(B) procedure is part of the initial direct appeal of right. Assistance of counsel is constitutionally required at both stages. 372 U.S. 353 (1963) (holding that a state is required to provide counsel to an indigent defendant on appeal as of right). Indigent defendants have no Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel. 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (holding that there is no federal constitutional right to counsel for indigent prisoners seeking state postconviction relief). Petitioner Fernando Lopez argued that the state courts' denial of appointed counsel to help him prepare his 26(B) application violated his constitutional right to assistance of counsel because the 26(B) procedure is part of the initial direct appeal as of right. 355 F.3d 931 (6th Cir.) (holding that the Ohio Court of Appeals' decision that the petitioner was not entitled to a Sixth Amendment right to appointment of counsel for filing an application to reopen his direct appeal was not contrary to clearly established federal law). Because panels of this court have split over the correct characterization of the rule. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2170.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gaythwaite</U> were on brief. Were on brief. P.C.</U> were on brief. Were made in a civil rights action filed in May of 1998. The thrust of the complaint was that workers of Mexican descent. Were treated harshly because of their Mexican background. 29 U.S.C. § 1801 <U>et seq.</U> The complaint was filed by fourteen individuals. DeCoster and DeCoster Egg Farm.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 36. Line 9: change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1015.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Replace case number </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/003387.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may seek to revisit those issues in consolidated administrative appeals in its own permitting process in a costly pr oceeding that will delay NE Hub's construction of the Facility. Principally on the jurisdictional gr ound that it was not ripe for decision before the state pr ocess concluded. We disagr ee with the district court on the ripeness issue and accordingly will reverse its order dismissing the action and will remand the case for further proceedings. The construction is a substantial undertaking requiring NE Hub to drill through the Oriskany sand formation which contains competing storage facilities owned by Penn Fuel Gas. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Since this is an interlocutory appeal. Filed even before the parties have completed discovery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/94-1514.wpd.html">TRIERWEILER V. CROXTON AND TRENCH HOLDING CORP.<BR></A><BR> C&T offered to have Dublin Osaka Group. When these opinions were provided. Following is a description of each appellee's alleged role. Watt owned equity in the firm and was to receive a share of its profits. That Watt was participating in and overseeing C&T. Or tell Trierweiler that it was necessary to confirm ownership. Brasher wrote that Dublin did in fact have the authority to fulfill its duties under the Unconditional Guaranty and Security Agreement. Other defendants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE3MDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1705-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0MDItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5402-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) imposing a remedy disgorgement that defendants appellants allege is beyond the power of the federal courts. Defendants contend that the District Court's action was erroneous on several grounds. We consider two of the defendants' arguments in greater detail: (1) that the District Court should have allowed defendants to benefit from an exemption to the federal securities registration For reasons substantially similar to those articulated in this opinion. Franklin arose from the same district court proceedings and was argued befo re this Court in tandem with the instant cases. 1 2 requirements2 and (2) that the District Court exceeded its authority in granting equitable disgorgement of defendants' ill gotten profits. The facts below are drawn from the complaint of the SEC and the Cavanagh III opinion of the District Court. A Massachusetts corporation that was developing a fingerprint verification system. Prohibits the sale or delivery after sale of any security by means of interstate comm erce </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/995042.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The majority opinion which follows was in final form before the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in the appeal of Carhart v. Because nothing in that opinion is at odds with this Court's opinion. The District Court found the Act unconstitutional because it: (1) is void for vagueness. We will affirm. Joined what is now a majority of states in enacting a law banning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5948AA850E3D51BC88256D8E005A5204/$file/0255368.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contends that his potentially indefinite detention by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5133a.html">USA/LONG RONALD E. V. STATE OF NEW YORK<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee.<p> With him on the briefs was <i>Peter H. With him on the brief was <i>William H. With him on the briefs were <i>Frank W. <p> Hunger</i>. Dunn</i> was on the notice of joinder in brief for <p> appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg</i> was on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> The <p> Regents of the University of Minnesota.<p> <p> Before: Wald. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The question presented in this <p> appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the <p> False Claims Act. We hold that they are <p> not.<p> <p> <p> <b>I.</b> <p> <p> Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and <p> Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the <p> New York State Department of Education. The Bureau's funding depended in substantial part on <p> tuition assessments and fines that SCS paid to the Bureau. <p> Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of <p> the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the <p> United States. Frey and <p> other state officials took actions to limit and subvert his <p> investigation.<p> <p> Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5133a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the False Claims Act. We hold that they are not. I. Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the New York State Department of Education. Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the United States. Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. Was a sweetheart deal that was but another instance of the state's conspiracy with SCS to conceal and perpetuate SCS' fraud a conspiracy that he alleges continued until SCS filed for bankruptcy in 1995. New York ignored evidence of SCS' continuing fraud and falsely represented to the United States that SCS' fraud had ceased and that it was actively monitoring SCS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0910p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing acts.[fn5] Consequently. The Final Order and Injunction was amended to obligate One Stop to serve each of its sales agents with a copy of the Order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE3MDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1705-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></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-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994737A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the last slash in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/737077ADEF7C3A4588256B5900034A07/$file/0030411.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have provoked concern about the reach of the federal government and the rights of those brought into court via these statutes. The concern is even greater. Pierre Y. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0933p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.P. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9D33A3EF8BC665C88256D95005BFD72/$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-5.gif" ALT="599"></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-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-2064.htm">A. BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, MOTIONS, ORDERS, AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS97-2064 -- U.S. V. GONZALES -- 07/28/1998<BR></A><BR> If there is a right of access. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991692.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Most of them are quite technical. Of especial interest and 3 importance are questions dealing with the extent to which the court may consider the relative indigence of the losing party in determining the amount of the costs award. The prevailing party in a federal civil action is entitled to costs. The clerk of court is charged with taxing such costs. As it was here. It is because this is the fourth published opinion that this court has filed in the litigation. Although we conclude that Eastern District of Pennsylvania Civil Procedure Local Rule 54.1(b) is invalid insofar as its limitations provision conflicts with that of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Which was untimely under the federal rule. We hold that the District Court erred in concluding that it did not have the power to consider evidence that the Plaintiffs submitted to the Court in support of their motion. The district court is conducting a de novo review of an essentially ministerial act of the clerk of court. It is important that the district court have access to all evidence relevant to help it insure that the imposition of a costs award is equitable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A057A971B23BDF98825735200553C3B/$file/0099005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Was convicted in 1979 for the robbery and murder of Rosemary Cobbs. He was sentenced to death. Both the convictions and sentence were upheld by the courts of California. We consider whether Fields was denied a fair trial on account of juror bias. The effect is to deny habeas relief. I Fields was paroled from prison on September 13. Rosemary was naked on the bed and Fields was standing by the door. A 16 year old girl who was the former girlfriend of Fields's brother. That he was going to take her on a long trip </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/024020p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These seven appeals have been filed by counsel to various claimants in the Diet Drugs Product Liability Multidistrict Litigation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5100.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was John S. Of counsel on the brief were James F. With her on the brief were Peter D. The United States is liable for the use of a method patent only when it practices every step of the claimed method in the United States. I. Zoltek Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B2E526E11618CBA88257210007B1F4A/$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-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkzNjFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9361_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before us are (1) an interlocutory appeal by the Republic of Austria. We are asked by the Republic of Austria and by the United States and the American Council for Equal Compensation of Nazi Victims from Austria. Which is reported to be the sole remaining obstacle to the implementation of a fund to compensate Austrian Jewish victims of the Nazi regime for Holocaust related property deprivations. Circuit Judge: We are asked by the Republic of Austria and by the United States and the American Council for Equal Compensation of Nazi Victims from Austria. Which is reported to be the sole remaining obstacle to the implementation of a fund to compensate Austrian Jewish victims of the Nazi regime for Holocaust related property deprivations. That fund was created in 2001 pursuant to an executive agreement between the United States and Austria. Other Austrian entities arises from sweeping confiscations of property that were part of the systematic Nazi victimization of Austrian Jews between 1938 and 1945. We are reminded of the words of Judah Gribetz. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F136AD631730FA3288256F89005DC35F/$file/0235547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Insert footnote 9 to Section II slip op. at 15673. How harmless error review is to be conducted is therefore squarely presented. I believe I should address the issue so that future panels confronted with it will have an expression of each of our views on this question. I cannot agree with Judge Clifton's analysis because he relies on the ALJ's and the district court's findings that the placement made by the procedurally defective IEP team was. Harmless because it was the best placement for M.L. This approach rewards procedural non compliance and is at odds with the Supreme Court's holding that the IDEA seeks to achieve its substantive ends largely through procedural means: [T]he importance Congress attached to [the Act's] procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid. . . . He appears to have jumped to the substantive second step to resolve the procedural first step. It is my view that loss of an educational opportunity cannot be determined by considering the merits of the placement identified in the IEP. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTAwODggdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-0088%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is incarcerated in a New York State prison. Sitting by designation. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 dismiss the plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the special housing unit confinement was too brief to support a due process claim and that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to the Eighth Amendment claim. We conclude that such complete dismissal is not required. Can survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) despite the fact that his period of confinement was less than 101 days. BACKGROUND Many of the relevant facts underlying this appeal are set forth in our prior opinion in this case. 191. 323 F.3d We repeat them here insofar as Because we think it necessary to explain our resolution of this appeal. the appeal is from the district court's dismissal of Ortiz's complaint. We state the facts as they are alleged in the First Amended Complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216424ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have rejected the argument that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Nguyen v. This motion is the first instance that was both timely and ripe in which a party objected. To his taking part in a decision as a judge of this Court. 2 1 was not beyond his constitutional power. The Judicial Branch is the controlling interpreter of how the Constitution applies. Is also sworn to uphold the Constitution. When the President is acting under the color of express authority of the United States Constitution. We start with a presumption that his acts are constitutional.2 See United States v. The interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Lisa M. Of counsel on the brief was Daniel I.S.J. With him on the brief was Sue Ellen Wooldridge. The threshold question in this case is whether the Navajo Nation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033552p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since Knapper's attempt to void the default judgments is foreclosed by the Rooker Feldman 2 doctrine. We will vacate the district court's order and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A mortgage lien was placed on both parcels of real estate as a result of one or more loan agreements Knapper entered into with Amresco Residential Securities Corporation. It was served on September 7. Giacomelli's affidavit of service recited that the complaint was served on an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></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-5.gif" ALT="597"></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-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5242a.html">CHAMBER CMERC US V. REICH ROBERT B.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044546p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response. We will overrule United States v. I. The material facts are undisputed. The DuPont Newport Superfund Site is an industrial site in Delaware. The site was identified in the early 1980s as a potential threat to human health. It was placed on CERCLA's National Priorities List. The total cost to the government was $1. The District Court held the government's recovery of both </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944303.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because all issues raised by Snowden in his habeas petition were either totally exhausted in state court or were already procedurally barred from further consideration in state court. We address the claims in the petition that were exhausted. Snowden was convicted of five counts of child abuse for acts which allegedly occurred at his home. Snowden was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. 2 Snowden appealed his conviction to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida. That motion was denied by the state trial court without an evidentiary hearing. This 3 report and recommendation was adopted by the district court. Relief was denied. (5) The trial court permitted the State's expert witness to testify that Snowden's counsel 4 was abusive to one of the children during a deposition. That is. Snowden must have raised these claims in state court to allow the state courts 1 In Snowden's petition to the district All the additional bias. Exclusion denial were of of court for relief he included these claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944303.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because all issues raised by Snowden in his habeas petition were either totally exhausted in state court or were already procedurally barred from further consideration in state court. We address the claims in the petition that were exhausted. Snowden was convicted of five counts of child abuse for acts which allegedly occurred at his home. Snowden was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. That motion was denied by the state trial court without an evidentiary hearing. This report and recommendation was adopted by the district court. Relief was denied. (5) The trial court permitted the State's expert witness to testify that Snowden's counsel was abusive to one of the children during a deposition. That is. Snowden must have raised these claims in state court to allow the state courts the opportunity to rule on the federal issues: the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies. While important in assuring that constitutional rights are observed. Is secondary and limited. Federal courts are not forums in which to relitigate state trials. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Kentucky resident who was stabbed to death at the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0307p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is on remand to us from the Supreme Court. The Court held that we had not properly examined whether the arguments and evidence that formed the basis for our ruling on Richey's ineffectiveassistance of counsel claim were procedurally barred. I. FACTS The details of this case were extensively set forth in our prior opinion. Familiarity with which is presumed. When he was twenty one. Kenneth Richey was convicted and sentenced to death by an Ohio state court for aggravated felony murder in connection with the death of two year old Cynthia Collins. Barchet occupied the apartment immediately beneath Collins's and that night she was with another man. Several witnesses testified that Richey was very intoxicated and smoked marijuana that night. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></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-5.gif" ALT="597"></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-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1436.html">JAMES V. CALDERA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/011119.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The central issue on appeal is the constitutionality of the federal witness tampering statute. We will affirm. David Tyler was arrested for drug trafficking. She was scheduled to testify as a prosecution witness in David Tyler's trial on April 21. Lifeless body was found alongside a country road in neighboring Adams County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was induced to embark on such a course of action by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/97-4436.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bankruptcy court and the district court both held that section 510(a) was not inconsistent with the Rule of Explicitness and that the legislative history accompanying section 510(a) revealed no intent to repeal the rule. The Senior Creditors were not entitled to receive post petition interest from the Junior Creditors. Is the indenture trustee (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></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-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-5214a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were H. On the brief were David W. Filed suit prior to termination of that conflict seeking a declaratory judgment that the President's use of American forces against Yugoslavia was unlawful un der both the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D13CFEE5F50B0CB88256E5A00707D84/$file/9916321.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963210P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 3 3 was informed that when [the Panel] needed to select a replacement for Edwin Ailts. [the Panel] should advertise the position in a publication of national circulation to reach all persons who might be interested so [the Panel] could have an open. I assumed at that time that he was referring to the Chief Probation Officer position which would be vacated upon my retirement since I had only recently indicated my intention to retire and I was unaware of any other vacant positions. This was a brief conversation with Judge Wolle and the comment was made by him in passing. Ailts that the Administrative Office was recommending an aggressive effort on the part of the COURT to recruit minorities and females as candidates for the Chief Probation Officer position which was becoming vacant. A biweekly publication of the Probation Division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that was circulated nationwide to all probation officers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></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-5.gif" ALT="594"></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-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-2267.htm">98-2267 -- UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION V. ALBERTSON'S -- 03/16/2000<BR></A><BR> At the time this litigation was filed. Federal jurisdiction was soundly based on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062419p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the Act prevents parties from taking such claims to federal court until they have been litigated before a state commission. We will 3 affirm the judgment of the District Court dismissing Count III of Core's complaint without prejudice. How those duties are enforced. Such questions are governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Which was enacted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/97-4436.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bankruptcy court and the district court both held that section 510(a) was not inconsistent with the Rule of Explicitness and that the legislative history accompanying section 510(a) revealed no intent to repeal the rule. The Senior Creditors were not entitled to receive post petition interest from the Junior Creditors. Is the indenture trustee (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E25209903C0AB77E88256F43005CD04A/$file/0235547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This critical structural defect in the constitution of the IEP team precludes us from considering whether the IEP developed without the inclusion of at least one regular education teacher was reasonably calculated to enable M.L. to receive a free and appropriate public education ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F382C43F9898192588256B1F00573AA6/$file/9916321.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1076.html">JOHNSON & JOHNSTON V. R.E. SERVICE<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21805F090F35B46A882571C4007CB64E/$file/0455536.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That Johnson Controls was engaged in a bid rigging scheme in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. 2 a draft of which was included with the letters. If any state funds are involved. If political subdivision funds are exclusively involved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014573.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zeigler was convicted of 2 counts of first degree murder and 2 counts of second degree murder. The historical facts of the murders are set forth in the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on direct appeal. Zeigler's execution was set for May 1986. While Zeigler's appeal was pending in federal court. He filed a second Rule 3.850 motion in state court which was denied. We vacated the district court's denial of Zeigler's motions and habeas petition and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to allow Zeigler to file a new amended petition limited to claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9CD2C5A4AE1B6A0388256E5A00707B22/$file/0035121.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: Before this en banc court are the district court's opinion and judgment entered pursuant to our court's mandate in 5627 Alaska v. There was no justification for taking so unusual an action here. We ordinarily do this only when there is a direct conflict between two Ninth Circuit opinions and a panel would not be free to follow either. No such conflict was asserted. Have provided a clear statement of the issues raised. A panel opinion would likely have emphasized the points raised 5628 by Judge Rymer in her separate opinion: that the present appeal asks this court to resolve the precise question we had already decided in the same case. The issue before the panel then would have been whether the law of the case applied. Or whether this case falls into one of the exceptions to that doctrine and there is nothing presented by the parties that would lead me to believe that an exception would have been applicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/993019.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is HIV positive. He was informed by the medical staff at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (SCIP) that his medical condition would be kept confidential. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. Because this right was not clearly established at the time of defendants' conduct. We will affirm the dismissal of Doe's complaint. Doe was informed by the medical staff that he was HIV positive. He was told that his medical condition would be kept confidential and that medical r ecords relating to his illness would be maintained separately from his general prison file. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. When Doe was taken for sick call appointments. Doe claimed his constitutional right to privacy was violated by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></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-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI2MzkgZGlzc2VudCB3IEVycmF0YS5wZGY=/05-2639%20dissent%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is indeed questionable whether. The plaintiff could have obtained effective judicial review of the validity of the government's proposed subpoena of the plaintiff's phone records without it. Could obtain records that identify journalists' confidential sources in gross and virtually at will. It is difficult to see in whose best interests such a regime would operate. For the question at the heart of this appeal is not so much whether there is protection for the identity of reporters' sources. Or even what that protection is. How any such protection is overcome. United States Department of Justice regulations have set forth a departmental policy designed to protect the legitimate needs of the news media in the context of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Department of Justice guidelines are broadly worded. This policy statement is thus intended to provide protection for the news media from forms of compulsory process. [before a subpoena is served on a member of the media. That the information sought is essential to a successful investigation particularly with reference to directly establishing guilt or innocence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1036.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the PUC lacked jurisdiction to determine whether they were in compliance with their federal certificates. That the PUC had threatened enforcement action against the Plaintiffs </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-6201%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Vermont officials therefore broadly prohibited Huminski's Huminski complains presence in and around certain state courthouses. that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. Confers on members of the public and press to attend and report on judicial proceedings and to speak out on public issues. other is impairment of the ability of courts effectively and efficiently to protect their personnel. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a We The presumption that he was entitled to access. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1625p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Until EPA's remedial activities at the site are completed. We will now overrule that portion of Princeton Gamma Tech on which plaintiffs rely and affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The incineration contract was awarded in September 1993. The first step in the implementation of the incineration remedy involves a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/94-3344.wpd.html">TYLER V. CITY OF MANHATTAN<BR></A><BR> The district court ruled that compensatory damages for mental and emotional injury were not available under the ADA absent intentional discrimination. The district court further concluded that Tyler had not claimed he was subjected to intentional discrimination. No cause exists for this court to resolve an issue raised not by Tyler but by the United States as amicus: whether compensatory damages are recoverable for unintentional violations of the ADA. Is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.(2) He is partially paralyzed and essentially unable to read. Sitting by designation. (1) The City suggests that the district court's judgment was not a final. Appealable judgment because it ordered only injunctive relief and the district court necessarily retains jurisdiction over the parties until they have complied with the terms of the injunction. An order or judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it resolves all substantive issues on the merits and effectively ends the litigation. There was thus a final. Tyler was free to appeal from anything in that judgment or the court's prior. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/445A43C3060EFEA788256A45005D38DB/$file/0035121.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: Before this en banc court are the district court's opinion and judgment entered pursuant to our court's mandate in 5627 Alaska v. There was no justification for taking so unusual an action here. We ordinarily do this only when there is a direct conflict between two Ninth Circuit opinions and a panel would not be free to follow either. No such conflict was asserted. Have provided a clear statement of the issues raised. A panel opinion would likely have emphasized the points raised 5628 by Judge Rymer in her separate opinion: that the present appeal asks this court to resolve the precise question we had already decided in the same case. The issue before the panel then would have been whether the law of the case applied. Or whether this case falls into one of the exceptions to that doctrine and there is nothing presented by the parties that would lead me to believe that an exception would have been applicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI2MzktY3YgdyBkaXNzZW50LnBkZg==/05-2639-cv%20w%20dissent.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is indeed questionable whether. The plaintiff could have obtained effective judicial review of the validity of the government's proposed subpoena of the plaintiff's phone records without it. Could obtain records that identify journalists' confidential sources in gross and virtually at will. It is difficult to see in whose best interests such a regime would operate. For the question at the heart of this appeal is not so much whether there is protection for the identity of reporters' sources. Or even what that protection is. How any such protection is overcome. United States Department of Justice regulations have set forth a departmental policy designed to protect the legitimate needs of the news media in the context of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Department of Justice guidelines are broadly worded. This policy statement is thus intended to provide protection for the news media from forms of compulsory process. [before a subpoena is served on a member of the media. That the information sought is essential to a successful investigation particularly with reference to directly establishing guilt or innocence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986882.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was armed with a rifle. While Peoples was armed with a deadly weapon. Recommended that Peoples be sentenced to death for each murder by an 11 to 1 vote. 2 This opinion is organized as follows. He joined Peoples and the Franklins who were sitting around a table. 3 Peoples knew about the Corvette because he had been a member of a work crew that built a fence around the Franklins's backyard and from time to time had performed odd jobs in and around the Franklin residence. 3 Peoples soon left the table to look for the Franklins' ten year old son. He brought him to the table where Gooden and the boy's parents were sitting. Gooden replaced her gag and 4 Paul Franklin was seriously disabled as a result of shrapnel injuries suffered in Vietnam. Gooden remained with the Corvette and pick up truck while all of this was taking place. Was walking toward the Talladega Downs when Peoples arrived at the apartment complex. He told her that it was an early birthday present for his wife. As they were talking. She noticed what he was wearing a light colored shirt and blue jeans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0476p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></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-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0028n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the grounds that his career offender sentence enhancement was based. On state court convictions which have subsequently been vacated by the state courts because they were void. The complex factual scenario is as follows. Claiming that his state convictions were void because the sentence promised by the prosecution and imposed by the state court violated Tennessee law. He contended that his state convictions were illegal because of the aforementioned sentencing defect and therefore should not have been considered. (2) the motion advanced new grounds for relief which he should have raised in the 1996 motion. (3) his claim was not cognizable under § 2255 because the state convictions were set aside on state law rather than constitutional grounds. We hold that Watt's claim is cognizable under § 2255. I. A final ruling on a § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a district or circuit judge issues a certificate of appealability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06A0476P-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1111p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are the Contacts Such That Application of American Law Would Be Reasonable? 41 a. Was seriously injured when she was sucked into the propellers of a scuba diving vessel. Plaintiff was a member of the crew of the vessel. Which was in St. We first find American maritime law potentially applicable in this case because the plaintiff is an American citizen. We consider whether applying American law is reasonable under the circumstances. Lucia might have in this case are undefined and. By this we do not mean that the vessel involved here was unlike those in traditional. The activity here was non traditional. Which as we explain is an important consideration in non shipping contexts. One of the defendants is a corporation organized under the laws of St. Was registered in St. Are so threatened or so strong that America’s interests must be ignored. The significance of plaintiff’s American allegiance is an especially important factor. The relevance of the plaintiff’s having entered into her employment contract in the United States is also enhanced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1244p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to interpret and apply the United States Supreme Court's admonition in McFarland v. We hold that the district court's decision to deny him a stay of execution was not consistent with a sound exercise of discretion. Was found stabbed to death in a restroom in the restaurant where she worked. Steven Duffey was charged with the killing. Duffey was formally sentenced. The motion was denied on November 18. A motion for reconsideration was denied on November 22. Believing that the trial court's denials were predicated on its view that it lacked jurisdiction to stay Duffey's execution in the absence of a petition filed under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0239p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ricky Martin Luna were all arrested for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The four defendants were part of a vast drug enterprise that brought large quantities of cocaine and marijuana into Nashville. They were convicted by a jury of these crimes and given sentences ranging from 210 months (Solorio) to 292 months (Juarez). Factual Background The defendants in this case were all part of a drug ring that bought. The leaders of this operation (which was based in Nashville) were Terrell McMurry and Timothy Booker. The first were Omar Rocha Rodriguez (known as Omar Rocha) and Adriana Rocha Espinoza (a woman who lived with Rocha). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></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-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051817p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's confirmation of the arbitration award. I. Factual and Jurisdictional Background The parties to the arbitration are Safeguard International Partners. SIP is the general partner of SIF Management. The Agreement did not specify what 1 The partnership agreements are all governed by Delaware 3 law. court would have jurisdiction over the arbitration. Related parties who were also owed fees. SIP filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to determine who was eligible for arbitration under the Agreement. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity of citizenship between the multiple parties. Any lien from the arbitration award is released. We note that this motion might have been brought more properly under FED. Although there is not complete diversity between the parties. There is federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the Federal Arbitration Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963746P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 to whom we will refer collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1920VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Middleton</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The Blind Vendors' claim is that New Hampshire did not give proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1362.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. was on brief. P.A. was on brief. With whom Wright & Cherry was on brief. With whom Peabody & Brown was on brief. With whom King and Ryan was on brief. P.A. was on brief. P.A. was on brief. Hood was on brief. Were on brief. Suggest that while two New Hampshiremen might once have been a match for Satan. Times have changed. Further facts will be added as we discuss specific issues. Sepulveda was usually accompanied by his brother. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></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-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3ABD0905B71D45B788256CF400741A79/$file/9955824.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that Smith is entitled to equitable tolling because the district court erroneously dismissed his earlier. I. Smith was convicted of first degree burglary and sentenced to 22 years in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Shortly after AEDPA was signed into law on April 24. While the state's motion to dismiss was pending. The district court held that Smith had not fairly presented this claim because the language quoted above was indecipherable. Smith explained that his difficulty in presenting his case was attributable to his lack of education and illiteracy. 2 Under AEDPA's one year grace period. This time on the ground that this final petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court held that this petition was untimely and dismissed it with prejudice. We granted a motion to expand the COA to include the issue of whether Smith was entitled to equitable tolling. Smith was entitled to statutory tolling from July 5. For reasons that are not clear from the record. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-4149.htm">02-4149 -- SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS V. NIELSON -- 08/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Appeal the district court's ruling that the state's statutes regulating the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel are preempted by federal law. <u>See</u> <u>Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. The Utah officials argue that the district court should not have reached the merits of this dispute because (1) the plaintiffs who challenge the statutes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></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-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM4ODctcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3887-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the constitutionality of New York's DNA statute is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/986577.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was abridged when one lawyer jointly represented her and her husband. Was not presented to the state courts during postconviction relief (PCR) proceedings. While her federal habeas application was pending. She suggests that the appropriate remedy is to return the matter to district court for reconsideration of her claims in light of this evidence. We conclude further that the district court correctly determined that Teresa's claims were without merit. I. Teresa and her husband Ronnie Wilson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-5252a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert F. Brink mann were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. On the brief were Peter D. The only circuit then to have considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></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-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FB113670C2ECEC188256CD90080CAFB/$file/0216214.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are called on to decide whether a voluntarily joined foreign sovereign may remove a case from a territorial court to a federal district court when the foreign sovereign obtained the original defendant's interest by assignment after the commencement of the litigation. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY EIE Guam Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></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-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982091.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 1 2 the identity of the district court is corrected to read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913138.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414669.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That he was denied his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Florida Supreme Court's disposition of Maharaj's claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Nor was its decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. I. The basic facts and procedural history are straightforward. Maharaj was sentenced to die for one of the murder counts. His convictions and sentences were upheld by the Florida Supreme Court on direct appeal. His subsequent request for post conviction relief was denied by the state trial court. Which was. A new penalty trial was ordered. After which Maharaj was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count for which he had previously been sentenced to die. Are these. Krishna Maharaj is a British national. Who was living in South Florida in October of 1986. The state's most important trial witness was Neville Butler. Although he was never officially hired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></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-5.gif" ALT="587"></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-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2332.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal question concerns the validity of an advance waiver of appellate rights contained in a plea agreement.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-7015.man.html">NEWTON V. CAPITAL ASSURANCE (4/20/2000, NO. 98-7015)<BR></A><BR> We are compelled to address the question sua sponte. We now clarify that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.</P> <P> There are three statutes that potentially affect federal question jurisdiction in this case: the general </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-5421.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ DE VARON (3/3/1998, NO. 96-5421)<BR></A><BR> She was convicted in the U.S. She was sentenced to 46 months in prison. We have reviewed her contentions and vacate and remand her sentence for further proceedings in the district court.</P> <P> I. When examined by the officials she admitted that their assumption was correct. De Varon was then taken to a hospital where medical examination revealed that she had ingested 70 pellets of heroin. 350 she was carrying at the time of her arrest in return for the government's agreement to dismiss Count Two. The resulting offense level was a 23. The sentencing guideline range for an offense level of 23 with a criminal history of I is 46 to 57 months.</P> <P> De Varon objected to this calculation. The court stated that even if her account of other participants was true. The court said:</P> <P> [T]he fact that she can point to other people that may have provided the narcotics to her would not alter my own determination that she played an integral and essential part in the scheme to import.</P> <P> As I have noted in the past. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-5421.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ DE VARON (3/3/1998, NO. 96-5421)<BR></A><BR> She was convicted in the U.S. She was sentenced to 46 months in prison. We have reviewed her contentions and vacate and remand her sentence for further proceedings in the district court.</P> <P> I. When examined by the officials she admitted that their assumption was correct. De Varon was then taken to a hospital where medical examination revealed that she had ingested 70 pellets of heroin. 350 she was carrying at the time of her arrest in return for the government's agreement to dismiss Count Two. The resulting offense level was a 23. The sentencing guideline range for an offense level of 23 with a criminal history of I is 46 to 57 months.</P> <P> De Varon objected to this calculation. The court stated that even if her account of other participants was true. The court said:</P> <P> [T]he fact that she can point to other people that may have provided the narcotics to her would not alter my own determination that she played an integral and essential part in the scheme to import.</P> <P> As I have noted in the past. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913138.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by § 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></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-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002224R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> King were disqualified from participation in the poll on rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc are hereby denied. Some of the dissent's objections are different from those expressed in the dissent from the panel majority opinion. There is a common denominator. Because I do not believe that the text of § 1367 is consistent with the dissent's policy concerns. Because I do not believe that the federal courts are empowered to employ policy arguments to trump the plain meaning of Congress' words. The first is that diversity is a disfavored form of federal jurisdiction. The second is that Rule 23 is a disfavored rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The result the majority opinion reaches is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A2A4C9772AA8364288256AA7006E6662/$file/0030227.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is ordered recalled. 10081 The Opinion filed June 18. Is amended as follows: 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/017B2D2166EADEA188256E5A00707C4E/$file/0030227.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is ordered recalled. 10081 The Opinion filed June 18. Is amended as follows: 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0728p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-7015.man.html">NEWTON V. CAPITAL ASSURANCE (4/20/2000, NO. 98-7015)<BR></A><BR> We are compelled to address the question sua sponte. We now clarify that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.</P> <P> There are three statutes that potentially affect federal question jurisdiction in this case: the general </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BAFCE5A2E7CF80188256EB300546C8F/$file/0155246.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Robert Kennedy was tried twice on a charge of selling 0.08 grams of a substance in lieu of a controlled narcotic drug a substance that looked like an illegal drug but wasn't to an undercover police officer for $20. Kennedy was represented by a new attorney who proceeded without the aid of a complete transcript of the prior trial. Aware that the new attorney did not have the full transcript. He was sentenced for the $20 sale of a non drug to 7848 KENNEDY v. He argues that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal protection was violated when the state court denied his request for the full transcript of his first trial. Because the state court's decision was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law. Was Detective Leroy McDowell of the San Diego Police Department. Detective McDowell testified that he was working undercover narcotics detail in casual clothes one afternoon in October of 1995. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0319p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stating that it is inclined to grant Petitioner Post's FED. Because the district court committed legal error by failing to recognize that the relief sought in the Rule 60(b) motion is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i). Because Post's motion constitutes a second or successive habeas petition that the federal courts do not have the power to adjudicate. I. The facts in this case are set out in detail in Judge Wells's order. The facts relevant to our inquiry are these. Post's case was then handed from attorney to attorney in the Public Defenders office. The district court issued an order stating that counsel's failure to pursue discovery was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/738326AFC5C2D2FB8825705F00561D04/$file/0315823.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Torres is substituted for his predecessor. TORRES COUNSEL Plaintiff appellant cross appellee was represented by Robert M. Defendant appellee cross appellant was represented by Randall Todd Thomspon of Mair. Because the action was unsuitable for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. GIAA was authorized to retain outside counsel and to use its own legal counsel in civil actions.3 In 2003. TORRES General of Guam was sworn in. The district court determined that the letter was privileged as an attorney ... (c) The Attorney. Who must have been admitted to the practice of law in Guam. Shall advise the Board and the Executive Director on all legal matters to which the Authority is a party or in which the Authority is legally interested. [c]onduct on behalf of the government of Guam all civil actions in which the government is an interested party. Departments or agencies which are authorized to employ their own legal counsel may use them instead of the Attorney General. The court agreed with GIAA that the proper defendant was GIAA's Board of Directors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-5009b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Javitt were on the briefs. Stanley was on the briefs. Frey was on the briefs for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Hedg peth were on the briefs for amicus curiae The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research. The regulated parties are not obligated to make them available to members of the public. Jurnove's affidavit is an uncontested statement of the injuries that he has suffered to his aesthetic interest in observing animals living under humane conditions. 49 (D.D.C. 1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed. [he is] very familiar with the needs of and proper treatment of wildlife. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BF653EABAE9A542488256DB0007A1FE1/$file/0057222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Donald Scott Lagatree was refused employment as a legal secretary by Luce. Both cases are closely on point.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5009b.html">ANIMAL LEG DEF FUND V. GLICKMAN DANIEL<BR></A><BR> </i>United States Attorney <p> at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Harris Weinstein</i> argued the cause for appellant National <p> Association for Biomedical Research. Javitt</i> were on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Katherine A. Stanley</i> was on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Andrew L. Frey </i>was on the briefs for <i>amicus curiae</i> <p> Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.<p> <p> <i>Leslie G. Hedg <p> peth</i> were on the briefs for <i>amicus</i> <i>curiae</i> The Jane Goodall <p> Institute for Wildlife Research. The regulated parties are not obligated to make them <p> available to members of the public. <i>See id.</i><p> <p> The individual plaintiffs. Jurnove's affidavit is an uncontested statement of the <p> injuries that he has suffered to his aesthetic interest in <p> observing animals living under humane conditions. <i>See Ani <p> mal Legal Defense Fund. <p> 49 (D.D.C. 1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on <p> all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0118p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the defendants have raised a sovereign immunity defense to these claims as an alternative ground for affirmance. The Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=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-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF48386956684E8388256F540056492F/$file/0273538.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ASHCROFT 16177 Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1644.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Burlock & Woodcock was on brief. If the dispute here involves an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0114p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the district court should never have addressed the merits of Pough's case because his motion was untimely. BACKGROUND Pough was arrested on May 28. When Pough was subsequently indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute both powder and crack cocaine. Jacqueline Johnson of the Federal Public Defender's Office was then appointed to represent Pough on June 29. I cannot stress enough that you must not have direct contact with [Becker] or any law enforcement officer without advice and notice to your counsel. I advised [Becker] that you must have counsel because of the possibility of implicating yourself in uncharged state criminal offenses. You may complicate and jeopardize the plea negotiations that I have already pursued with [Becker]. Depending on what deal [Pough] is able to make with. What value [Pough] is to. The government learned at some point that the state of Ohio was preparing to indict Pough for the murder of Brad McMillan. Firearms who was scheduled to testify against Pough on drug related charges pending in state court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002387.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court also found that the defendant was not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause in the underlying contract signed by its subsidiary. We will affirm these rulings. We will reverse the grant of that injunction principally on the grounds of comity. The joint venture was encountering difficulties. Were unable to resolve their differences. The complaint sought damages as a result of lost sales and diversion of resources toward tasks that were the contractual responsibility of Moteren Werke. While these matters were proceeding in the District Court. The issue was submitted to a jury. Which found that Deutz was not entitled to arbitration. At the time the contract was signed. Deutz was known as Klockner Humboldt Deutz. It was the latter entity. We will refer to the company throughout this Opinion as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1085.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claim a competing property interest in any of the land. (1) Phelps Dodge is the ultimate parent company of MEMCO. <hr> The BLM determined that nine of MEMCO's claims satisfied patent requirements. The district court held that third parties who claim no ownership interest in the land subject to a mineral patent cannot challenge the issuance or validity of the patent under the 1872 Mining Law and have no right to relief under the APA. Is a matter of first impression. The Plaintiffs' second claim (FOIA) against the BLM is still pending in the district court and is not the subject of this appeal. <hr> subject matter jurisdiction. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo). B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal Appellees It is well settled that the Plaintiffs can only sue the BLM to the extent it waived its sovereign immunity. 1331 will only confer subject matter jurisdiction where some other statute provides such a waiver. Is entitled to judicial review thereof. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEwODAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1080-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Rondout Valley Central School District Board of Education is not entitled to dismissal on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity. We consider whether defendant Rondout Valley Central School District Board of Education is an arm of the State of New York entitled to claim Eleventh Amendment immunity. We conclude that it is not. I. Factual Background The background facts that follow are taken from the complaint. Plaintiff Harold Woods was first employed as a per diem substitute teacher at Rondout Valley Central High School in September 1999. Because he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0425p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were prohibited from establishing themselves within 1. This site was within 1. Other periodicals which are distinguished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting. It concluded that Velvet Touch was not within the definition of an adult bookstore and therefore did not require a variance to conduct business at its chosen location. He claimed that 1) Velvet Touch was an adult bookstore. Agreeing with Vredevoogd that Velvet Touch was an adult bookstore as defined in the ordinance. The court determined that it was premature to rule on the remaining issues as Executive Arts was entitled to a ruling by the ZBA on the original variance request. The court also noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032173p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Individuals on probation and supervised release who have committed certain qualifying offenses. While Paul Sczubelek was on supervised release. Sczubelek appealed on the grounds that the collection of a DNA sample is an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and also in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. We conclude first of all that this case is not moot. While Sczubelek was still serving his term of supervised release. The court issued a summons based on a violation of a condition of his release and the delay between the expiration of his term and the adjudication of the violation is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2002/01-13317.opn.html">FOR YOUR EYES ALONE, INC. V. CITY OF COLUMBUS (2/6/2002, NO. 01-13317)<BR></A><BR> Because we conclude that there was no pending state criminal action before proceedings of substance on the merits had taken place in federal court. We hold that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1307a.html">NATL FUEL GAS SUPPLY V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001898.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was violating provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-1230a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Ann S. Among these is the power to remove a bank officer from his position and to bar him from further participation in the operations of a federally insured depository institution. The case was forwarded to the FDIC's Board of Directors for a final decision. The principal issue for review is Landry's argument that the FDIC's method of appointing ALJs violates the 1 In the same proceedings. Lewis's petition for review is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. First Guaranty was in serious financial trouble. That it was still a candidate for near term failure. Found that Landry and his two associ ates were the incorporators of Pangaea Corporation. The board was misled because the plan was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2002/01-13317.opn.html">FOR YOUR EYES ALONE, INC. V. CITY OF COLUMBUS (2/6/2002, NO. 01-13317)<BR></A><BR> Because we conclude that there was no pending state criminal action before proceedings of substance on the merits had taken place in federal court. We hold that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0260p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dow Corning argues in a crossappeal that the bankruptcy court should have ordered the payment of post petition interest at the non default variable rate required by the contracts. Since Dow Corning has always been fully solvent and is still solvent post bankruptcy. I. BACKGROUND Dow Corning is a joint venture wholly owned by its two shareholders. Dow Corning was fully solvent at the time it filed its bankruptcy case. The purpose of the bankruptcy petition was to enable prompt and uniform settlement of the numerous breast implant related lawsuits pending against Dow Corning at the time of the petition. When a reorganization plan was finally proposed in 1999. The majority of the unsecured commercial debt contracts would have required a rate higher than the federal judgment rate. These creditors are the appellants in this case. The following requirements are met: (1) under the plan. The class would receive an amount that is equal to or greater than the amount they would receive if the debtor's assets were liquidated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/05-5168a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\05 5168 Subpoena30a.odl.wpd
582 99-6083 -- HALE V. GIBSON -- 09/25/2000

Circuit Judge.

582 OPINION/ORDER
Was at her home and that Deborah's boyfriend. Was expected to arrive later in the evening. That was the last chance Mrs. O'Nan would have to speak to her daughter alive. O'Nan testified that Angel was wearing a hot pink sweater. O'Nan searched her home to determine if any of Angel's belongings were missing. Although Angel's pink pants were found. Was told by the appellant that
582 OPINION/ORDER
Lines 1 2 the language is corrected to read:
582 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. Petitioner Cassandra Augustine was successful in her appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (
582 OPINION/ORDER
580 OPINION/ORDER
The bankruptcy court and the district court both held that section 510(a) was not inconsistent with the Rule of Explicitness and that the legislative history accompanying section 510(a) revealed no intent to repeal the rule. The Senior Creditors were not entitled to receive post petition interest from the Junior Creditors. Is the indenture trustee (the
580 OPINION/ORDER
To change the terms of her will and revocable trust. Approximately six weeks after she was moved to Indianapolis. Evelyn executed a new will and a new trust agreement. Evelyn once again executed a new will and an amendment to the trust. Causing her to execute a new will and a new trust naming Robert the sole beneficiary of her estate. As this was essentially a probate matter. Finding that Brion's lawsuit
580 OPINION/ORDER
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
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
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.
580 OPINION/ORDER
Pennsylvania (
580 OPINION/ORDER
Almost eight hours passed between the time when he first reported feeling sick and when he was finally taken to a doctor. Is a federal prisoner housed at the United States Penitentiary. Was convicted on November 28. Is currently serving a 262 month sentence. Kikumura's cell at 2:50 p.m. and observed that he
580 OPINION/ORDER
Who was a member of this panel. Are issues not easily resolved by reference to existing state law. Because we agree with the district court that ITC lacks standing to pursue a false advertising claim against Although the term
580 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Was on brief for appellee. The partial refund was upheld. While that action was pending. The bank was declared insolvent. Is a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States. It is undisputed that subparagraph (D) does not apply here. 2 Apparently the FDIC took this action one day before a discovery hearing and three days before trial. The case was to be heard together with a related case involving another Rhode Island bank and the same counsel. 4 state court.3 The FDIC. Claimed that it was exempt from the operation of the Act under the judicially created
580 OPINION/ORDER
After the Delaware schools' rudimentary attempts at desegregation were deemed insufficient by the district court in 1957. It was not until almost 20 years later (and 35 years after this court announced dissatisfaction with an original plan that called for grade by grade desegregation over a 12 year period) that the district court could announce that the marching orders had been obeyed: The school system has achieved unitary status by complying in good faith with our detailed desegregation decrees and by eliminating to the extent practicable the vestiges of de jure segregation. This was the ruling of the district court embodied in a judgment entered after a lengthy hearing. We will affirm. It is beyond dispute that racism and bigotry continue to tear at the fragile social fabric of our national and local communities. That our best efforts as citizens are needed to address this problem at many levels. Court supervised school desegregation alone cannot eliminate racial discrimination: [A]s the years have passed since Brown I and II [Brown v.
580 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Spelling of last name of appellant's counsel should be
580 WRIGHT V. SECRETARY FOR THE DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (1/10/2002, NO. 00-11105)

While he and his confederates in the crime were fleeing. Wright was later convicted in state court of two counts of armed robbery and one count of third degree felony murder. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for the robberies and to five years on the attempted murder.
580 OPINION/ORDER
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.
580 OPINION/ORDER
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. 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.
580 OPINION/ORDER
Which was allowed without a recorded colloquy between Henderson and the judge regarding the dangers of self representation. Henderson was not represented by counsel at a subsequent pretrial hearing where he unsuccessfully moved to suppress his confession. He was represented by counsel at his trial. We must first decide whether his habeas 2 petition was time barred under provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
580 OPINION/ORDER
The bankruptcy court and the district court both held that section 510(a) was not inconsistent with the Rule of Explicitness and that the legislative history accompanying section 510(a) revealed no intent to repeal the rule. The Senior Creditors were not entitled to receive post petition interest from the Junior Creditors. Is the indenture trustee (the
580 OPINION/ORDER
2006 * This case was originally argued on October 20. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. Before the opinions were filed. Judges Cowen and Greenberg were selected at random to replace Judges Becker and Nygaard. 3 Phillip J. The resolution of which would limit a religious institution's right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions. 4 Petruska's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. Are barred by the ministerial exception insofar as they implicate a church's right to select its ministers under the Free Exercise Clause. They are not precluded by the exception. We will affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petruska's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. We will remand her breach of contract claim for further consideration by the District Court. Gannon's motion to dismiss was framed in the alternative. Although we conclude that it is most properly construed as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We note that the standard is the same when considering a facial attack under Rule 12(b)(1) or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
580 OPINION/ORDER
Hutchinson was a member of the panel which heard this appeal. Holding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker Feldman doctrine and also that it should abstain under Younger v. We will accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. FOCUS is a Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania unincorporated association consisting of some fifty birth and foster parents whose goal is to make the Allegheny County Children and Youth Services (
580 OPINION/ORDER
Because NIBCO has failed to demonstrate that the protective order was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. I. Factual and Procedural Background The plaintiffs in this dispute are twenty three Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants once employed as production workers at NIBCO's factory in Fresno. California.1 All of the plaintiffs are of limited English proficiency. NIBCO allegedly responded with a The suit was originally brought by twenty five named plaintiffs as representatives of a similarly situated class. Some plaintiffs were demoted or transferred to undesirable job assignments. All plaintiffs were terminated in the period between July 30. NIBCO asked where she was married and where she was born. Although Rivera had specified that she was of
580 OPINION/ORDER
Presiding *Lawrence Wasden is substituted for his predecessor. We conclude that the statute's definition of
580 WRIGHT V. SECRETARY FOR THE DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (1/10/2002, NO. 00-11105)

While he and his confederates in the crime were fleeing. Wright was later convicted in state court of two counts of armed robbery and one count of third degree felony murder. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for the robberies and to five years on the attempted murder.
580 OPINION/ORDER
DC 20005 Attorneys for Appellant This appeal was originally argued before the panel of Judges Smith. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the recusal of Judge Smith. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the Act prevents parties from taking such claims to federal court until they have been litigated before a state commission. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court dismissing Count III of Core's complaint without prejudice. How those duties are enforced. Such questions are governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Which was enacted
578 OPINION/ORDER
The relevant facts surrounding their separate offenses and their respective sentencings are as follows. beyond the initial directive. We believe the original twentyone year old age limit is sufficiently clear to overcome an argument from silence. Our hesitance to infer too much from mere
578 OPINION/ORDER
578 OPINION/ORDER
George Banks was convicted by a Luzerne County. Was sentenced to death. Which was denied. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Because Banks's habeas corpus petition was filed after April of 1996. 1 the role of the District Court in reviewing the state court proceedings was governed by AEDPA.2 Accordingly. The District Court's task was to determine whether the state court's decision was either contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Because the question of whether the District Court appropriately applied the AEDPA standard of review is a question of law. The AR 15 is a civilian version of the military's M 16 rifle. S 2254(d) states: (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to. Who is bi racial.
578 OPINION/ORDER
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
578 OPINION/ORDER
Are they permitted to approach the suspect and inquire whether he now wants to talk. Are they precluded from acting on that information because it was not communicated to them directly by the suspect? Where he was arrested two months later by local police.
578 OPINION/ORDER
Currently before us are consolidated appeals filed by individual Senators who challenge the district court's rulings rejecting the claims of nonjusticiability. Which was filed by the individual Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and employees of the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts and which concerns the termination of Larsen's medical benefits. Was argued before the same panel of this court. Is the subject of a separate opinion. I. Background Larsen was first elected to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1977 for a ten year term beginning January 1978. Was reelected for a second ten years as of 1988. They were that. Larsen was formally charged with violating and conspiring to violate the Controlled Substances Act. Larsen was convicted by a jury of two counts of conspiring to violate the Controlled Substances Act. They included (I) according special treatment to certain petitions for allowance of appeal in cases where his friends were counsel of record who had made political contributions to him.
578 OPINION/ORDER
There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope This decision had to await the Supreme Court's decision in Cooper Industries. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. FORD MOTOR CO. 7 Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers.
578 OPINION/ORDER
Decedent was over eighty years old and became interested in planning his estate so that Spendthrift would continue after his death. Retained exclusive control over the private placement: All sales are subject to the discretion of the Sellers including the right to accept each unit as purchased or none until the entire offering is purchased. INSURING CLAUSE If during the policy period any claim or claims are made against the Insured (as herinafter defined) or any of them for a Wrongful Act (as hereinafter defined) while acting in their individual or collective capacities as Directors or Officers. The Insurer will pay on behalf of the Insureds or any of them.
578 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Jaysukh Zalawadia was deported to India while his habeas appeal challenging the legality of the deportation order was pending. We hold that we have habeas jurisdiction over this petition. To grant relief beyond simply vacating the defective order under which he was deported. Whose liberty interests and rights are now no longer encumbered by the deportation order. Was admitted into the United States in September 1988. He pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary and felony theft and was sentenced to two years probation and required to pay restitution. They were not deportable
578 OPINION/ORDER
578 OPINION/ORDER
Bowling was convicted in state court of murdering Tina and Eddie Earley and sentenced to death. His conviction and death sentence were affirmed by Kentucky courts on direct appeal and in post conviction proceedings. He contends that he was denied proper jury instructions. Given a sentence that was constitutionally disproportionate. Eddie and Tina Earley were shot to death in their automobile in a parking lot outside a Lexington dry cleaning establishment. Parker No. 01 5832 year old son Christopher was also shot. The police determined that the Earleys' car must have been hit by a 1981 light blue Chevrolet Malibu. They also determined that a 1981 Malibu was registered in the county to Bowling. They pursued several theories of who could have murdered the Earleys. Were worried because they had not seen Bowling. Who was affectionately known as T.C. Was not there. Bowling was represented at trial by three attorneys: Baldani. The court's stated goal in voir dire was to qualify forty four of the ninety nine pooled jurors.
578 OPINION/ORDER
Judge) that the defendants are jointly and severally liable. Arguing that FACE is a violation of Congress's authority under the U.S. We conclude that damages under FACE are properly awarded jointly and severally among defendants and that FACE is constitutional. Were an ongoing threat to the Metropolitan Medical Associates (
578 OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs was John P. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Were so exceptional as to warrant departure.
578 OPINION/ORDER
The victim alleges that these rapes were motivated by her assailants' discriminatory animus toward women and sues them pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Morrison immediately asked Brzonkala if she would have sexual intercourse with him.
578 OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that Lands Council was unlikely to prevail on its claims and that the balance of hardships favored the Forest Service. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Mission Brush Area The Project assessment area is in the Bonners Ferry Ranger District in the northern portion of the IPNF. The area is home to abundant plant and animal species. Much of the historic forest conditions have been replaced by dense.
578 USA V. STROTHERS DONNIE
578 OPINION/ORDER
We reject the Summers rule in favor of one circumscribing the use of after acquired evidence to the remedies phase of an employment discrimination suit brought pursuant to Title VII or ADEA.[fn2] We will therefore reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment to Harleysville. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[FN3] Harleysville hired Mardell as a Branch Life Manager in February 1988 to manage insurance agents.[fn4] Mardell appears from the record to have been an accomplished life insurance agent. Who was being promoted out of the position at Harleysville for which Mardell would be hired. Shelow was familiar with Mardell's work at Prudential and felt that she would excel as a Life Manager for Harleysville. Even though at the time he imposed the probation Mardell's work was improving and she had surpassed the yearly goal he had set for her (A 76 78. Who then was 52 years old. Contending instead that gender and/or age discrimation was the cause.
575 OPINION/ORDER
Was abducted. The members of the community were unaware of the accused murderer's history. Forty nine states had adopted sex offender registration laws and thirty two states maintained some form of community notification program. 6 We have before us challenges to the constitutionality of the notification requirements of New Jersey's Megan's Law based on the Ex Post Facto. The issues before us are difficult but relatively narrow. We are not called upon to decide whether Megan's Law can constitutionally be applied to one who has committed one of the designated sex crimes after its enactment. Is it our responsibility to determine whether the policy judgments reflected in Megan's Law are prudent ones. Public reaction to Megan's murder was intense. The Law and Public Safety Committee held a hearing upon pending legislation that pre dated Megan's Law and would have required victim notification on the release of offenders. Registration and community notification bills identical to their General Assembly counterparts were introduced in the Senate on September 12.
575 OPINION/ORDER
Who is appearing pro se. That the arbitration award should be sustained against an action by Gangale seeking to have it vacated under the Ohio Arbitration Act. Wachovia has cross appealed the two decisions in its favor for reasons that are not entirely clear. I. While the facts leading to the lawsuits that resulted in these appeals are relatively straightforward. The procedural history is difficult to understand because Wachovia brought several lawsuits in state and federal courts to have the arbitration award confirmed under both the Ohio and Federal Arbitration Acts. We will begin with a recitation of the facts. Which are not in dispute. 2 First Union filed an arbitration action with the National Association We will refer to Wachovia Securities. Which is permissible under the terms of the Margin Agreement between the parties. Reads as follows: After an award in an arbitration proceeding is made. This suit was assigned to Magistrate Judge Gallas and Judge Economus under Docket Number 5:02 CV 100.4 On June 21.
575 02-6241 -- PIERCE V. MACY -- 03/02/2004

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.

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.

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.

575 OPINION/ORDER
Kimberly Homan and Sheketoff & Homan were on briefs for Raymond J. Sultan with whom Rankin & Sultan was on brief for Robert F. Were on briefs for the United States. He was sentenced by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to a prison term of 97 months. The government appeals from the district court's determination that the relevant conduct for sentencing purposes in this RICO case is limited to just the predicate Travel Act violations charged against Patriarca and conduct relating directly to those charged predicates. It was further alleged that members of the Patriarca Family were required to obey their superiors and commit criminal acts at their direction. Members of the Patriarca Family were allegedlyrequiredto sharetheirillegalprofitswiththeirsuperiors. 4 The indictment alleged that the Patriarca Family was in the business of extortion. The predicate racketeering acts in which Patriarca was personally named were five violations of (and conspiracy to violate) the Travel Act.
575 OPINION/ORDER
575 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows. The petition for rehearing is denied. There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope pointing downhill. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers.
575 OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal from the district court's award of summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff Appellant's intentional tort claim against his employer. The primary focus of the parties' appellate briefs was the soundness of the district court's ruling on the intentional tort claim. Is subject matter jurisdiction. Which is lacking. Since the district court and this Court are without authority to consider the merits of the case. This matter remanded to the Michigan state court from which it was removed. Was severely injured while performing electrical maintenance.2 Valinski had been assigned to help with an
575 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight
575 OPINION/ORDER
Contends that the EPA's

final rule is invalid because the EPA did not comply with

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although

we are sympathetic to the view expressed by many within

the Area that this rule threatens serious economic harm.

we recognize that our role as a reviewing court is strictly

limited. We are constrained to deny the petition for

review.

575 03-6206 -- JENNINGS V. CITY OF STILLWATER -- 09/14/2004

Four members of the OSU football team whom we will refer to. Plaintiff claims that she was raped. The football players maintain that the encounter was consensual. The football players were not charged with any crime as a result of these events.

In this suit brought under 42 U.S.C.

575 OPINION/ORDER
Ramirez & Ramirez were on brief. Dominguez & Totti were on brief. The Executive Order is reproduced in an appendix to the district court's rescript. Each agency was directed
575 OPINION/ORDER
000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center (
575 OPINION/ORDER
We believe that the court did have jurisdiction. The Plan provides that salaried and hourly employees cannot use vacation benefit days and will not be paid any vacation benefits upon termination of their employment until and unless they have completed. The purpose of the letter was
575 OPINION/ORDER
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
573 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The sole issue on appeal is whether we should construe or extend the United States Supreme Court's decision in Moragne v. He was actually employed by Tidewater Temps but worked on behalf of Mid Atlantic Coastings (MidAtlantic). Which was used to load sand for sandblasting. The crane operator's negligence and Norfolk's use of an inadequate communication signaling system were the reasons for her son's death. The Court noted that at common law there was no civil action for an injury that resulted in death and that English maritime law also had no cause of action for wrongful death on the high seas. The Court concluded that because it is now established that in the courts of the United States no action at law can be maintained for [wrongful death] in the absence of a statute giving the right. We are forced to the conclusion that no such action will lie in the courts of the United States under the general maritime law. Which originally was an obscure and rarely used cause of action for which many state wrongful death statutes did not account.
573 BUCE V. ALLIANZ LIFE INS. CO. (4/10/2001, NO. 99-15405)

The denial of benefits was overturned and the plaintiff the widow of the decedent was awarded $150. The insurance carrier also argues that the proper standard of District Court review of the denial of benefits was not
573 MCABEE V. CITY OF FORT PAYNE (1/23/2003, NO. 02-10149)

Circuit Judge:

573 MCABEE V. CITY OF FORT PAYNE (1/23/2003, NO. 02-10149)

Circuit Judge:

573 03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004

Circuit Judge.

573 OPINION/ORDER
FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by
573 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Theodore B. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Donald E. With him on the brief were Jeffrey G. Of counsel on the brief were Ronald L. With him on the brief were Martha B. Because the VEOA is subject to equitable tolling and Kirkendall is entitled to a hearing on his USERRA claim. Was chosen to fill the position. All of which were denied. The board has no authority to decide whether DoL should have waived the 60 day deadline. The board affirmed the AJ's decision that the VEOA claim was precluded for failure to timely file. The board held that Kirkendall's assertion that he was not selected based on his status as a disabled veteran was cognizable. That Kirkendall had offered no proof that his veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor in his nonselection. Review was denied. Cir. 2006) (per curiam order). 05 3077 3 The order granting en banc review asked the parties to brief three issues: (1) Is the 15 day period for filing appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(B) subject to equitable tolling? (2) Is the 60 day period for filing a claim with the Secretary of Labor set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) subject to equitable tolling? (3) Are all veterans who allege a USERRA violation entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7701?
573 BUCE V. ALLIANZ LIFE INS. CO. (4/10/2001, NO. 99-15405)

The denial of benefits was overturned and the plaintiff the widow of the decedent was awarded $150. The insurance carrier also argues that the proper standard of District Court review of the denial of benefits was not
573 MANDERS V. LEE (3/14/2002, NO. 01-13606)

This interlocutory appeal presents the question of whether a Georgia sheriff in his official capacity is an agent for the state. Thus is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

573 MANDERS V. LEE (3/14/2002, NO. 01-13606)

This interlocutory appeal presents the question of whether a Georgia sheriff in his official capacity is an agent for the state. Thus is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

573 OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: Appellant Vernon Lee Evans was convicted and sentenced to death by Maryland juries for the contract murders of David Scott Piechowicz and Susan Kennedy. Is a second or successive petition. Was hired by Anthony Grandison to kill Cheryl and David Scott Piechowicz. The Piechowiczes were scheduled to testify as witnesses against Grandison in a federal narcotics case. Was working in Cheryl's place along with Scott Piechowicz in the motel lobby. Evans was arrested and charged with federal and state crimes. He was convicted in federal district court. Evans was sentenced to life and ten years in prison. Evans was tried on state charges in the Circuit Court for Worcester County. Evans was tried for two counts of first degree murder. Who was Evans' girlfriend at the time of the murders. Who was awaiting his federal drug trial. Sparrow looked inside the brown canvas bag he was carrying and saw a machine gun. Several other witnesses were able to place Evans in the motel lobby during the time immediately preceding the murders.
571 OPINION/ORDER
We must determine whether the State Defendants are entitled to constitutional immunity from plaintiff A.W.'s claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The District Court correctly held that the State Defendants have waived any immunity from these claims by the acceptance of the federal financial assistance. We therefore will affirm. The defendants knew or should have known of his medical condition. He was a nineteen year old high school student when he commenced this action. A request was filed in December 1997 with the NJDOE on behalf of A.W. and other Jersey City students with dyslexia. The NJDOE is a recipient of financial assistance under the IDEA and other federal programs. The district was ordered to undertake corrective action regarding its reading curricula. He allegedly is making progress in reading. This amended complaint contained ten counts and sought such relief as the entry of a judgment declaring that A.W.'s rights were violated and both compensatory and punitive damages. Were allegedly liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringing his rights under the IDEA and section 504 by conducting an allegedly ineffective complaint investigation.
571 OPINION/ORDER
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
571 OPINION/ORDER
The district court certified for appeal the question of whether a declaration by a Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy setting forth what the government contends were the circumstances of Hamdi's capture was sufficient by itself to justify his detention. Because it is undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict. We hold that the submitted declaration is a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the Commander in Chief has constitutionally detained Hamdi pursuant to the war powers entrusted to him by the United States Constitution. No further factual inquiry is necessary or proper. Was foiled by the efforts of the passengers and crew on the highjacked airliner when it crashed in Somerset County. 000 people were killed on American soil that day. Have been captured by American and allied forces. Hamdi apparently was born in Louisiana but left for Saudi Arabia when he was a small child. Hamdi was transferred to the Norfolk Naval Station Brig after it was discovered that he may not have renounced his American citizenship.
571 OPINION/ORDER
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
571 OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief. Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 6334. The Supreme Court clarified that the Rooker Feldman doctrine is only operative where a federal suit is initiated after state court pro MOTHERSHED v. JUSTICES 8527 ceedings have ended. 125 S. 25 (1st Cir. 2005) (
571 OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows: 1.). Who was aware
571 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Richard B. With him on the brief were Michelle M. Fred Wertheimer. 2 Trevor Potter was on the brief for amici curiae John McCain. Federal campaign finance law is complex. BCRA is no exception. Though few of its details are important to this litigation (and those that are we describe later in our analysis).
571 97-3268 -- U.S. V. PEARSON -- 02/22/2000

(6) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that he committed felony murder as defined by 18 U.S.C.
571 OPINION/ORDER
The petitions for rehearing en banc were circulated to the full court and no judge requested a vote on the petitions. Lodi's motion for judicial notice in support of its petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. 2002 and reported at 2002 WL 1792612 is hereby amended as follows: At page *17. That MERLO's provisions dealing with cleanup procedures are preempted by CERCLA only to the extent that they permit Lodi to order use of procedures more stringent than the NCP
571 OPINION/ORDER
Gary Bradford Cone was sentenced to death in a Tennessee state court for a double murder of an elderly couple and his conviction and death sentence were affirmed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. We are asked to decide · Whether Cone was sentenced to death in violation of the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Is whether. Even in cases in which the issue is not raised explicitly. · The second. Is whether the petitioner procedurally defaulted. Bell No. 99 5279 Our answer to the first state law question is yes. It is no. We are authorized to reach the Eighth Amendment issue. We hold that petitioner Cone's death sentence must be vacated because one of the statutory aggravating circumstances the jury relied upon in imposing the death sentence that the murders were
571 MURPHY V. FED. DEPOSIT INS. CORP. (4/7/2000, NO. 98-5292)

The district court held that Murphy's claims against the FDIC were barred by the federal common law D'Oench. Duhme doctrine is well settled in this Circuit. We affirm the district court's order dismissing Murphy's complaint.

I.

The facts underlying this case are straightforward. The procedural history of the case is both unusual and important. Southeast itself was declared insolvent on September 19. Murphy was induced to invest by a solicitation letter from Orchid which falsely represented that projections by Arthur Anderson &. That these decisions were separate and apart from Southeast's role as a mere lender to Orchid. Negligent misrepresentation and securities violations.

The FDIC moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Murphy's claims were barred by the federal common law doctrine of D'Oench. Murphy could not assert a claim against the FDIC based on the theory that Southeast was a joint venturer with Orchid in the Project because there was no written joint venture agreement between the two. Murphy v.

571 OPINION/ORDER
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
571 OPINION/ORDER
He was serving two concurrent state sentences. * The district court sentenced him Honorable J. He also claims that the order of restitution was erroneous in light of his financial condition. He was arrested at least seven times and convicted five times for various crimes. He was arrested and convicted of crimes relating to this activity in four separate prosecutions in the Circuit Court for Dade County. These cases were consolidated for sentencing. He was sentenced to prison for seven years. He was released when these sentences expired in March We derive the following factual account from the presentence report (
571 OPINION/ORDER
The Petitions asserted that disqualification was also wa r r a n te d u nder 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) as a result of ex parte communications among Judge Wolin and his advisors. Our decision was
571 OPINION/ORDER
While he was a tenant at the Jeffries Homes public housing project in Detroit. Is based on federal rights under the same statutes and regulations as described in Count I. Was diagnosed with lead poisoning at the age of two. Plaintiff's brief on appeal is devoid of any argument pertaining to an appeal from the June 21. This portion of the appeal is therefore deemed abandoned.
571 APOTEX, INC V. TOMMY THOMPSON

Argued for plaintiff appellant.  With him on the brief were Terrence P. Canade and Hugh S. Balsam.  Of counsel on the brief was Arthur Y. Et al.  With him on the brief were Eric M. DC.  On the brief for defendants appellees were Douglas N. On the brief were Bruce N. Weiswasser.  Of counsel was Stephen T. Demonstrating through the presentation of test data that the drug in question is safe and effective.  21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1)(A).

            Before 1984. 98 Stat. 1585.  The Hatch Waxman Act authorized a company to obtain FDA permission to market a generic version of an approved drug by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application ( ANDA ).  If the ANDA establishes both that the active ingredient in the proposed drug product is the same as the active ingredient in the previously approved drug and that the proposed product is bioequivalent to the approved drug.

571 OPINION/ORDER
The constitutionality of a statute criminalizing an activity that is not directly linked to interstate commerce. The precise question before us is whether it was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to enact 18 U.S.C. Which imposes criminal liability on individuals who possess child pornography that has not itself traveled in interstate commerce as long as one of the materials from which the pornography was created in this case. This statute has a jurisdictional element or
571 MURPHY V. FED. DEPOSIT INS. CORP. (4/7/2000, NO. 98-5292)

The district court held that Murphy's claims against the FDIC were barred by the federal common law D'Oench. Duhme doctrine is well settled in this Circuit. We affirm the district court's order dismissing Murphy's complaint.

I.

The facts underlying this case are straightforward. The procedural history of the case is both unusual and important. Southeast itself was declared insolvent on September 19. Murphy was induced to invest by a solicitation letter from Orchid which falsely represented that projections by Arthur Anderson &. That these decisions were separate and apart from Southeast's role as a mere lender to Orchid. Negligent misrepresentation and securities violations.

The FDIC moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Murphy's claims were barred by the federal common law doctrine of D'Oench. Murphy could not assert a claim against the FDIC based on the theory that Southeast was a joint venturer with Orchid in the Project because there was no written joint venture agreement between the two. Murphy v.

571 OPINION/ORDER
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
571 STDNT LOAN MKT ASSN V. RILEY RICHARD
568 OPINION/ORDER
Counts 1 and 3 were tried to a jury in August 2001. Count 2 is not at issue in this appeal and was ultimately dismissed with prejudice on September 27. Facts McKesson is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals. She was transferred to McKesson's distribution center in Romeoville. She was working two full time jobs. There was no job description that established a priority between the two positions. Moultry later was given a written warning for inappropriate behavior based on this incident. Testified at trial that Moultry was very upset when he was disciplined. The warning letter was not placed in Mr. It was kept in a separate file to which few employees had access. Her bid for this position was unsuccessful. The position was awarded ultimately to Hank Weinmaster. Who was then serving as the operations manager at a McKesson warehouse in Omaha. Handling truck delivery issues. 4 No. 04 3816 been promoted because she was having difficulty meeting performance standards in her position as transportation coordinator/computer room supervisor.
568 OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal from an order of the district court made final pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Arguing that the partial settlement was unfair and prejudicial to them. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. FACTS International Thoroughbred Breeders (
568 OPINION/ORDER
The district court granted a certificate of appealability on Jennings's claim that his sentence was rendered unconstitutional by the application of two invalid aggravating factors that the murder was
568 OPINION/ORDER
McCoy challenges the section of the federal statute that prohibits the possession of child pornography made with materials that have traveled in interstate commerce. We hold that 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) is unconstitutional as applied to simple intrastate possession of a visual depiction (or depictions) that has not been mailed. Or transported interstate and is not intended for interstate distribution. Were or are commercial producers of child pornography. At the time charges were filed against the McCoys. Kala were spending an evening at home. Her two older children were placed with foster care parents. Although only Kala was alleged to have played any role in the event that led to the arrest of her mother and stepfather. 1 UNITED STATES v. This pose was captured in one photograph. Rhonda was also charged with one count of manufacturing child pornography using materials transported in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).3 Rhonda and Jonathan filed It is. District attorney declined to file charges). 3 Although § 2251 is generally referred to as a
568 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: In this case we are called on. Plaintiffs in this case are citizens of the State of Hawaii who allege that various state programs preferentially treat persons of Hawaiian ancestry. Which this opinion will address. We are issuing a complete opinion in support of our judgment following remand from the Supreme Court. We hold that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the federal government and that the district court therefore correctly dismissed all claims to which the United States is a named party or an indispensable party. We reverse the district court's finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated standing as state taxpayers to challenge those programs that are funded by state tax revenue and for which the United States is not an indispensable party. Lack standing to bring a suit claiming that the OHA programs that are funded by state tax revenue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although it is not clear that any Plaintiffs have standing in any other capacity to challenge the OHA programs.
568 OPINION/ORDER
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
568 OPINION/ORDER
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
568 ROWE V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE(1/23/2002, NO. 00-16361)

Circuit Judge:

568 OPINION/ORDER
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
568 OPINION/ORDER
Goss was the major manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States for more than a century and enjoyed dominance in the United States printing press market into the late 1990s. A clawback statute is a countermeasure that enables defendants who have paid a multiple damage judgment in a foreign country to recover the multiple portion of that judgment from the plaintiff. Canada that allows companies which have paid treble damages under United States antitrust law judgments to
568 OPINION/ORDER
Is corrected as follows: On page 16. P.C. was on brief. Were on brief. Because there is no other cognizable basis for federal jurisdiction. Lurie and O'Connor are named as defendants in the instant suit. EPA has not yet sued to compel payment of these expenses or otherwise to enforce its claimed rights. 2The officer removal statute provides in pertinent part: A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following persons may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: 4 On February 20. Was really a suit against EPA and that. We requested supplemental briefing on whether this action was properly removed to federal court. Both sides responded that removal was valid under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) because of Belaga's status as a federal officer. Because a federal court is under an unflagging duty to ensure that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cases it proposes to adjudicate.
568 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the district court's order dismissing the complaint on the ground that appellants have not alleged an injury to business or property cognizable under RICO. Appellants instituted this purported class action on behalf of themselves and all members of a class 4 consisting
568 OPINION/ORDER
Contends that the EPA's final rule is invalid because the EPA did not comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although we are sympathetic to the view expressed by many within the Area that this rule threatens serious economic harm. We recognize that our role as a reviewing court is strictly limited. We are constrained to deny the petition for review. The Act authorizes the EPA to identify air pollutants that are sufficiently dangerous to warrant federal regulation. Which is the maximum allowable concentration of the pollutant in the ambient air. One pollutant for which the EPA has promulgated a NAAQS is ozone. Whose chemical precursors are emitted by industrial and transportation sources. That site is in noncompliance with the NAAQS. If one monitoring site within an area is in noncompliance with a NAAQS. Then the entire area is designated a nonattainment area for that pollutant. Nonattainment areas are further classified as
568 OPINION/ORDER
In 1992 he was traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike when he was unlawfully stopped. Gibson alleges that the stop and search were part of a pattern of racially discriminatory law enforcement practices undertaken by the New Jersey State Police. Gibson was released from prison after newly obtained This Opinion represents the Opinion of the Court on all issues except the discussion of the Fourth Amendment claims in Part III.A. The Opinion of the Court on those issues is contained in the Opinion of Judge Fuentes filed herewith (hereinafter referred to as
568 OPINION/ORDER
ERRATA SHEET ERRATA SHEET The opinion of the court is corrected as follows: On p.10. Assistant United States Attorney were on brief. Silverglate and Silverglate & Good were on brief. Lui's petition for habeas corpus was premised on the fact that the reversion of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China will take place on July 1. It will be impossible for the Crown Colony to try and to punish Lui before that date. The United States argues that Lui is within the literal terms of the extradition treaties between the United States and the United Kingdom. An argument which is surely wrong. Lui's more serious argument is that the Senate. The treaties give the courts a greater role when such considerations are present. Lui's posture is that of one charged with an ordinary crime. His claim is that to surrender him now to Hong Kong is. Could not have intended such a result. The Senate was well aware of the reversion when it approved a supplementary treaty with the United Kingdom in 1986. The Senate could easily have sought language to address the reversion of Hong Kong if it were concerned.
568 ROWE V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE(1/23/2002, NO. 00-16361)

Circuit Judge:

568 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace
566 OPINION/ORDER
The federal suit alleges violations of the United States Constitution and is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As is alleged. The fifteen counties where they are employed lack a manual recount procedure. Which is available in Florida's remaining fifty two counties. ' that is. A recognition . . . that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments. A continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. A federal plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a state statute under which he was being prosecuted as a defendant. 677 78 (11th Cir. 1992) (abstaining from attempt to
566 OPINION/ORDER
These convictions arose from Goines' possession of a firearm while he was selling and using illegal drugs. These terms were the product of separate analyses under the sentencing guidelines because § 924(c) requires a consecutive sentence. As is relevant here. Amendment 599 modified Note 2 to include the following language: If a sentence under this guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense. Including any such enhancement that would apply based on conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct). . . . If the explosive or weapon that was possessed . . . in the course of the underlying offense also results in a conviction that would subject the defendant to an enhancement under . . . §2K2.1(b)(5) (pertaining to possession of any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense). The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Commission sought
566 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellee. Judgment was entered in the United States District Court for the District of Maine following a jury trial. The tobacco was transported 3 3 surreptitiously into Canada through the Passamaquoddy Reservation in Pleasant Point. Passamaquoddy Tribe member Anthony Stanley testified that on April 15 he was called to discuss some tobacco business by Beverly Pierro. Who was then serving as chief of police of the Passamaquoddy Tribe (
566 OPINION/ORDER
This appeal was argued before the panel of Judges Sloviter. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. * (Filed June 6. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said:
566 OPINION/ORDER
This appeal was argued before the panel of Judges Sloviter. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. * (Filed June 6. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said:
566 OPINION/ORDER
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
566 OPINION/ORDER
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
566 OPINION/ORDER
The request for rehearing en banc is denied. 3085 3086 WINN v. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: The decision in this case sharply limits the traditional restraints on federal judicial interference with state tax systems and is in conflict with the position of the Sixth Circuit. The Arizona statute at issue grants a tax credit of up to $500 a year for taxpayer contributions to
566 OPINION/ORDER
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
566 OPINION/ORDER
Appellant James Smithers was convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
566 OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that there was no pending state criminal action before proceedings of substance on the merits had taken place in federal court. We hold that Younger abstention was improper. Diane Sherman and Wendy Baskin were lingerie models at the studio. The parties agree that FYEA is an adult entertainment establishment under § 14 223. Is provided a thirty day time limit for granting or denying such a permit. Pennza were not parties to the state litigation. The Revenue Department notified FYEA that it The section states in full: No adult entertainment establishment shall allow and no employee thereof shall engage in private modeling sessions or other activities involving sexual displays in which one (1) employee is placed in a one on one situation with one (1) customer. Despite receiving a letter from Sergeant Rick Stinson stating that FYEA was approved for an adult entertainment permit. Nor did it receive a business license that would have allowed it to continue offering adult entertainment. The City also contends that an undercover police operation led to the conclusion that FYEA was not in compliance with the Ordinance.
566 96-8083 -- PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL V. BABBITT -- 09/01/1998

Chief Judge.

566 OPINION/ORDER
Hamdi is being held according to the time honored laws and customs of war. There is nothing illegal about that. The question is essentially whether the United States can capture and detain prisoners of war without subjecting the factual circumstances surrounding foreign battlefield seizures to extensive in court review.1 The answer to this is now and always has been yes. I regret that my colleague does not even quote the provisions of Article I and Article II which delegate the conduct of war to the coordinate The government does not concede that Hamdi is a prisoner of war. Rather asserts that he is an unlawful combatant. The distinction is irrelevant because the decision to detain until the cessation of hostilities belongs to the executive in either case. The panel earlier expressed doubt that the timing of a cessation of hostilities was even justiciable. Is a question too fraught with gravity even to be adequately formulated when not compelled.
566 OPINION/ORDER
That court does not state that petitioner's application was denied for failure to identify with particularity the issues upon which the application is based. The petition is procedurally barred. (2) leave to appeal was denied by the New York Court of Appeals without stating that the denial was due to petitioner's failure to identify particular issues for review. The victim was Galdamez's co worker. The prosecutor attempted several times to cross examine Galdamez on statements allegedly made by him to persons who were not to be called as witnesses at the trial.** The judge later instructed the jury to
566 OPINION/ORDER
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
566 OPINION/ORDER
This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression UNITED STATES v. It is squarely presented.2 Facts Scott was arrested for drug possession crimes under state law and released on his own recognizance. Among the conditions of his release was consent to
566 03-6014 -- POWERS V. HARRIS -- 08/23/2004

Who are members of the Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (
563 OPINION/ORDER
(2) whether it is a violation of
563 96-8083 -- PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL V. BABBITT -- 02/09/1999

Public Lands Council concedes that the statutory citation is incorrect but contends that we should cite a different statutory provision rather than remove the highlighted portion of the sentence.

Upon consideration. The court grants the limited petition for rehearing and orders the highlighted portion of the sentence removed from the court's opinion so that the sentence will read:

563 OPINION/ORDER
We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY PGI is the employer sponsor and named fiduciary of the Pressman Gutman Co. Throughout this opinion we will refer to the petition as seeking only a writ of mandamus as all the relief PGI seeks is available through mandamus. Even though the facts relating to defendants' liability are in sharp dispute. The pertinent facts material to our disposition of these matters are undisputed. We note that each party in these contentious proceedings accuses its opponent of improperly citing material outside the record in contravention of the
563 OPINION/ORDER
Bockius LLP were on the brief. Snyder LLP were on the brief. Inc. were on the brief.

563 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Richard Ceballos filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was subjected to adverse employ 3448 CEBALLOS v. Qualified immunity was not available to the individual defendants because the law was clearly established that Ceballos's speech addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer's interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption. Is entitled to such immunity depends on whether he was performing a state or a county function when he took the alleged actions with respect to Ceballos. We hold that in most respects he was acting in the latter capacity. He is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Neither is the County. In 1997 or 1998 he was assigned to the District Attorney's CEBALLOS v. GARCETTI 3449 Office's Pomona Branch and about a year later was promoted to calendar deputy. Told Ceballos that he believed that one of the arresting deputy sheriffs may have lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos was supervising the deputy district attorney assigned to the case.
563 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. The SJC later held that it was an insufficient remedy under the Massachusetts Constitution merely to afford same sex partners the same benefits as married couples without also recognizing their marriage.
563 OPINION/ORDER
After he was released. After summary proceedings in which no evidence was heard and virtually no factual record developed. These cross appeals present numerous questions (some of which are quite difficult): (1) Do the registration and notification provisions of Megan's Law constitute
563 OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows: 1. Insert
563 OPINION/ORDER
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
563 OPINION/ORDER
The agreement indicated that the purchase price for the home was $58. After the construction was completed by Masterbuilt and approved by the Castleberrys in November 1988. 2 to whom the Castleberrys began making Daiwa Finance Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Daiwa America Corporation (
563 JOHN MCBRYDE V. U.S.

Argued for plaintiff appellant.
563 OPINION/ORDER
Getsy's petition was denied by the district court. The panel majority held that Getsy's death sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate to the life sentence that the separately tried instigator of the plot received for procuring the murder. Chuckie was on the love seat in the family room when.
563 OPINION/ORDER
We must determine whether an attorney who provided no defense at the guilt or penalty phase was ineffective in defending a young drug dealer. Who was an alcohol and drug abuser. When relief was denied in district court. We VACATE the denial of habeas relief as to the death sentence and REMAND to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if petitioner is entitled to habeas relief because of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. Who was unemployed but a drug dealer and For factual completeness to address the issues on appeal in our independent review. We include facts from affidavits and expert reports that were exhibits at the 3.850 proceeding but were not part of the record before the district court. It was evident that we needed to review them. The exhibits were filed as
563 OPINION/ORDER
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
563 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Page 20. Is amended by inserting
563 OPINION/ORDER
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
561 OPINION/ORDER
The primary issue we must decide is whether the NCAA can be considered a recipient of federal funds. Smith initially attempted to amend her complaint to argue that the NCAA is subject to Title IX because it receives dues from its members universities. Which are recipients of federal funds. Those two theories are now before us in this appeal. I. BACKGROUND The NCAA is an unincorporated association comprised of public and private colleges and universities. It is responsible for promulgating rules governing all aspects of intercollegiate athletics. Among them is the Postbaccalaureate Bylaw. Smith was an undergraduate at St. She enrolled in a post graduate program at Hofstra University that was not offered at St. The District Court dismissed the Sherman Act claim and declined 3 the ground that it failed to allege that the NCAA is a recipient of federal financial assistance. Holding that it was moot. We held that her allegation that the NCAA receives dues from federally funded member institutions was sufficient to bring the NCAA
561 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: A grandmother alleges in this civil rights action that she was deprived of the custody of her granddaughter for five years in violation of rights secured by the Constitution. The defendants are Chester County Children & Youth Services (
561 OPINION/ORDER
Is Arkansas. Continues to violate) ethical rules concerning conflicts of interest during the course of what is widely known as the Whitewater investigation. Mandanici also alleged that Starr has or at one time had a conflict of interest arising out of his investigation of the now defunct Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) in connection with Whitewater and a lawsuit that the RTC filed against Starr's law firm.3 Mandanici alleged that the lawsuit was ultimately settled in secret for $300. The district judges initially voted to refer the Starr is a partner in the Washington. The applicable procedure is not otherwise mandated by these Rules. That the DOJ would take no action against Starr because the
561 HART V. ATTORNEY GEN. OF STATE OF FLORIDA (3/5/2003, NO. 01-15571)

Jason Monte Perini were indicted by a Dade County. Each defendant was charged with two counts of first degree murder. The defendants were also charged with the armed kidnaping of Aneschka Culmer. Who was the only witness and survivor of the armed

561 OPINION/ORDER
Garcia Lara for speeding as he was driving on Interstate 35 near Emporia. Garcia Lara's prior convictions were for controlled substance offenses as defined in U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(b). Which is guided by the statutory factors delineated in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Is the measure of the appropriate use of a district court's discretion. Asking whether it is reasonable under the 3553(a) factors. Because a legal standard based on reasonableness is inherently fact dependent. We have implicitly acknowledged that we employ an abuse of discretion standard
by reviewing a district court's factual findings for clear error. It is clear that district courts must apply. Our appellate review is guided by. 437 F.3d at 1053 (noting that appellate reasonableness review is
561 OPINION/ORDER
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
561 OPINION/ORDER
Because Cooper was indicted pursuant to statutes that are meant to protect public health and safety. The third requirement for Younger abstention is that there be
561 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Maintaining that there was
561 97-6065 -- MOORE V. REYNOLDS -- 07/13/1998

We affirm.

I.

Moore was convicted of robbery in 1978 and served three and a half years in state confinement. Where Alex Fernandez was working the night shift. He was unsuccessful. Moore called Fernandez to ask if there were any rooms available. Moore told Caster she was to open the cash register while he tied and gagged Fernandez.

Moore and Caster drove to the Airline Motel and parked behind the motel. As Caster was attempting to wipe away her fingerprints. There was no answer and they drove to a cafe. Moore said

561 OPINION/ORDER
With whom Carmencita Velazquez Marquez and McConnell Valdes were on brief. With whom Humberto Ramirez was on brief. At the base of the appeal is a sexual harassment suit brought by Nydia G. Because none of these claims is relevant to this appeal. Employers are held strictly liable for damages 2 notwithstanding that the plaintiff had neither pleaded a cause of action thereunder nor invoked the statute at trial. Three questions are now before us. (1) May a district court enter judgment for a plaintiff on a cause of action that was neither pleaded in the complaint nor raised during the course of trial? (2) May a district court prior to the close of trial unilaterally introduce an unpled cause of action into the proceedings? (3) In any event. Assume supplemental jurisdiction over a nonfederal cause of action that could have been introduced during trial. The statutory language is inexplicit. Rodriguez has not challenged these rulings and they are unaffected by this appeal. All references herein to the judgment are.
561 OPINION/ORDER
LLP were on brief. P.A. were on brief. The ICCTA established the Surface Transportation Board (STB) within the Department of Transportation. See 49 U.S.C. § 701(a).
561 OPINION/ORDER
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
561 HART V. ATTORNEY GEN. OF STATE OF FLORIDA (3/5/2003, NO. 01-15571)

Jason